Jean Pelletier's testimony

(PoliticsWatch posted April 6, 2004) Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Comité permanent des comptes publics

EVIDENCE number 21, 
Témoignages du comité numéro 21


UNEDITED COPY – COPIE NON ÉDITÉE

MORNING SITTING ONLY - SÉANCE DU MATIN SEULEMENT

Tuesday April 6, 2004

Le mardi 6 avril 2004

¿ (0905) 

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Okay, the orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), chapter 3, the Sponsorship Program, chapter 4, Advertising Activities and chapter 5, Management of Public Opinion Research of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada referred to the committee on February 10, 2004.

Our witness this morning is, as an individual, Mr. Jean Pelletier. 

Mr. Pelletier, welcome to the committee. We look forward to your participation today. 

We also welcome Mr. Guy Pratt, counsel for Mr. Pelletier, and, of course, I have no doubt you're aware of the rules, Mr. Pratt, that the questions are addressed to Mr. Pelletier. You're not allowed to speak, however Mr. Pelletier may consult you or you may advise him before Mr. Pelletier answers the questions.

Before we get into that, we have a little bit of housekeeping. The steering committee met yesterday. We will have a report that will require a couple of changes, so it will be circulated a little later on this morning. 

The steering committee met Monday, April 5 and agreed to the following: that pursuant to the committee agreement on scheduling witnesses in the following order, by category of importance and in relation to study of chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General regarding the sponsorship matter, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts should call and schedule the following persons to appear before the committee, in the following order. If desired witnesses cannot be scheduled in order of importance, a further category of expert witnesses should be used to draw on to replace those witnesses.

I'm going to read into the record a large number of names and the clerks and our forensic auditor and others will try to bring them in more or less the same order as we have here. 

You don't want me to read them in?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): They will be before the public as soon as it's distributed to members. 

The Chair: So we have a large number of names. We are going to be calling them forward in more or less the order they are in here, as far as scheduling is concerned, including Mr. Guité, Mr. Tremblay, all these, and Public Works, and so on. 

Pursuant to the committee's considerations of the chapters, we will be issuing invitations to the witnesses to appear. However, they will be given two business days' notice to accept the invitation. In the event they do not accept the invitation, the clerk will be authorized to issue an immediate summons.

It agreed further,that the committee instruct the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament to provide all support necessary to assist the clerks and researchers in meeting the increased work demands associated with the committee's study of chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General into this sponsorship matter.

I think we should go on record recognizing the great contribution, not only of the clerks and the Library of Parliament and the law clerk and our forensic auditor, but also of all the people who do not show up here, who have made their work so efficient. So we want to thank everybody, to show our appreciation to them, many of whom are nameless.

Beginning on April 19, 2004, we have adopted the following schedule of meetings. We're basically running on alternate weeks, with a Monday and without a Monday. So, on alternate Mondays, we will meet from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., with first Monday sitting to be on April 19. Therefore, on April 26, there will be no Monday meeting scheduled, and the following week there will be a Monday meeting scheduled, and so on. On Tuesdays, we will meet from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.; on Wednesdays, from 3:30 to 6:30; and on Thursdays, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. There will be no Friday meetings, except on April 23, when Mr. Guité is scheduled to appear from 9 to 1. 

We discussed the order of interventions by the individual parties. In the first round, a Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, and NDP member will have eight minutes each. In the second round, we will have a Conservative, a Liberal, a Bloc, and a Liberal member for eight minutes each. In the third and fourth rounds, we will have one Conservative and two Liberals, for four minutes each.

The committee agreed futher, that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel reply to the letter of March 25, 2004, from the Secretary of the Treasury Board—the letter that I tabled yesterday—to inform him that the committee notes the policy set out therein, but maintains reservations with regard to the policy's application.

To refresh your memory, basically the letter said that the government reserves the right, or the policy is that the government provide legal counsel to people appearing on behalf of the government. This particular investigation is a little different from the norm, and we had some concerns that a lawyer from the government, not necessarily paid by the lawyer, but a lawyer from the Justice Department, could perhaps have a conflict of interest, because he would have to defend the government and the witness at the same time. A lawyer from the outside, I think, is not a problem. 

Is that correct, Mr. Walsh? 

Mr. Pratt is not a government lawyer. You are not with the Department of Justice, but you're a private-sector lawyer, so that's okay.

¿ (0910) 

“In relation to the study of chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General regarding the sponsorship matter, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts requests from PWGSC”--that's Public Works and Government Services--“both the first and second administrative review reports of the sponsorship files which were conducted by Kroll Lindquist Avery for PWGSC in their entirety”. XXX

I believe that was your motion, Mr. Toews.

The final pointis that in addition, there will be a status report to the committee prepared by our researchers and brought forward for discussion next Wednesday. That is not a report to the House of Commons. That is a report to the committee to bring together all we have heard so far up to April 2. It will not include witnesses heard thereafter. We will make it public because of the interest in this particular part, but it will not be tabled in the House of Commons.

That is the report. Do you want to adopt it now?

Some hon. members: Yes.

All those in favour of the adoption of the fifth report of the sterring committee. 

(Motion agreed to)

¿ (0915) 

The Chair: It will be distributed around the mid-morning break.

Okay, now to our witnesses. 

I'll read this out, Mr. Pelletier to everybody. You're not specific on this. 

The refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House whether the witness has been sworn or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury. That's from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit, page 862 and I read that out before every witness makes their intervention. 

I ask also if you have been coached, counseled by anyone in government or anybody associated by this in this particular file so that to suggest you would answer questions in any particular direction. Have you been coached in any way?



Mr. Jean Pelletier (As Individual): No.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Pelletier?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Mr. Chairman, I was asked by your committee to be available to answer questions and here I am.

[Français]

Je suis là pour répondre aux questions que les membres du comité voudront m'adresser.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): I know that you've reminded the witness of what the obligation is. Part of the obligation as well of every witness coming here is also to disclose frankly and fully everything they know about the issue. So it's not simply, sir, to answer questions, but to report fully. I think that's perhaps lost on some of the witnesses. I'm wondering whether the law clerk could remind the witnesses of their obligation when they come to committee here.

The Chair: Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Rob Walsh (Procedural Clerk): Mr. Chairman, the member is quite correct. There is an obligation and indeed an expectation that witnesses will provide full and complete responses to the committee and make known to the committee all information that's relevant to the inquiry by the committee and will not simply wait for the right question to bring forward the right information, but will answer fully.

Having said that, I don't think it's correct that must necessarily include an opening statement by a witness, but it is the case that the witness will not simply wait for the right question before giving information that he knows to be pertinent to this inquiry.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

With no opening statements we're into questions.

Mr. Kenney, you're first. Eight minutes please.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Thank you for coming to the committee, Mr. Pelletier. I imagine that you're familiar with the testimony of Mr. Charles Guité which was recently released, in camera testimony from two years ago. Are you familiar with that testimony as it relates to this matter?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: In general terms, yes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: In that testimony, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Guité said that: 

During the referendum of 1995 my office was requested by the Federal-Provincial Relations Office to hold a competition—I have to be careful here the terms I use—and to follow a bit of the guidelines that exist in the rules, but I may have to for the better term bend them a little bit.


The Federal-Provincial Relations Office was an organ of PCO is that correct?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Right.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Were you familiar with this directive? Were you aware of this directive given by FPRO to Mr. Guité to bend the rules a little bit with respect to the administration of the sponsorship during the referendum?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, and I think it's a good time to ask the committee to make a distinction between PCO and PMO which are two different bodies.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I appreciate that.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sometimes, I read the press, Mr. Member, and I don't feel that this is clearly understood by the press.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Nevertheless, would you not agree, sir, that PMO and PCO work very closely together in the co-ordination of government policies.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Closely together, but separately.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, have you ever spoken with Charles Guité?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, yes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: How frequently did you speak with Mr. Guité during his period in the public service?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Maybe once every two months.

Mr. Jason Kenney: About once every two months--and what would be the nature of those conversations?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: The program was established by the government

[Français]

dans la foulée de l'après-référendum pour augmenter la visibilité du Canada et du gouvernement du Canada, en particulier au Québec. Cela n'a pas été exclusif au Québec mais en particulier au Québec. Évidemment, le programme, certains le critiqueront, mais le programme était parfaitement légitime et il était parfaitement normal pour les membres de la Chambre des communes, les membres du cabinet et leurs bureaux d'être en communication avec ceux qui administraient le programme.

¿ (0920) 

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: My question was simply how often you spoke with him and about what--

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai répondu à cette question. J'ai dit une fois tous les deux mois à peu près.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: And what would be the subject of those conversations?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Voir si le programme fonctionnait, voir si les évènements qui étaient relayés par les différents bureaux de ministres, de députés, Bureau du premier ministre étaient considérés par les subventions.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Would your conversations with Mr. Guité have occurred both during his administration of the APORS program and then later of the CCSB.

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne comprends pas tous ces acronymes. Est-ce que vous voulez me les expliquer.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: There were changes in the nature of the program. The status of the program that we are examining was as the sponsorship program following 1996. Did you speak to Mr. Guité after 1996?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai certainement parlé à M. Guité après 1996.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Did you speak with him about particular sponsorship files? Did you propose to him that he ought to authorize funding for particular projects? Specific projects?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Il n'y a pas l'ombre d'un doute que nous faisions nos recommandations comme n'importe quel député ou n'importe quel ministre soutient les dossiers de ses commettants à l'égard d'un programme où il y a une décision à faire.

Je précise, si vous me permettez, que jamais nous n'avons pris de décisions finales sur une activité à subventionner ou à commanditer quelle qu'elle soit. Nous faisions nos représentations, c'était notre devoir de répondre à ceux qui nous avaient écrit, mais nous ne faisions pas la décision finale et jamais, à ma connaissance, le Bureau du premier ministre n'était intervenu dans l'administration interne du programme. Je veux mettre cela de façon très claire.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: So that's a yes?

Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm a little confused when you say “nous”. To what does “nous” refer?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: The PMO.

Mr. Jason Kenney: The PMO. All right. You never made a final decision but you did ask Mr. Guité to fund certain projects?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sure. We were asked by--you remember at the time--

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, I have to explain. I only have eight minutes and I have to ask you if you could answer the questions directly, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, but I'm also asked by the counsel to give full explanations about what happened. If you permit me one second, I can respond to your--

Mr. Jason Kenney: That's what the opening statement is suppose to be for.

The Chair: That is correct. One does expect that a person coming here would make an opening statement and put the facts on the table or put their perceptions on the table.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Point of order, Mr. Chair. Maître Walsh made it very clear that this committee cannot either expect or demand an opening statement from any witness and you're saying that we fully expect and that it's reasonable for us to expect. So you're not following the instructions that we got from our counsel. 

What the counsel did say is that any witness that comes before us when being asked questions is expected to give and this committee has a right to expect fulsome answers.

So when Mr. Kenney poses questions, he has a right to expect fulsome answers, therefore, he should not be cutting off a witnesses who is attempting to give a fulsome answer.

The Chair: I'm sure that somewhere in the middle, Ms. Jennings and Mr. Kenney, that as you know members are restricted to their eight minutes and opening statements have been very helpful in the past and this is about the first time that we've never had one.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But we cannot reproach a witness for not making an opening...

The Chair: But the point that...the point that we have is that...

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The point that I'm making, the point of order that I'm making Mr. Chair...

The Chair: I understand your point of order Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Would you allow me to finish. The point of order that I'm making is that, given the instructions that Mr. Maître Walsh has given us, based on Montpetit, it is incumbent on the Chair and this committee not to reproach a witness who does not make an opening statement. 

That witness is expected to give fulsome answers to any question which is asked of them. This particular witness was attempting to do that and then becomes reproached by the member asking the question because they're attempting to follow the instructions of our legal counsel.

The Chair: Well as I said there's somewhere in the middle that has to be harmony and continue on Mr. Kenney please.

¿ (0925) 

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier you testified that you contacted Mr. Guité directly to request that he file particular projects, did you ever direct Mr. Guité or suggest to Mr. Guité that he use particular advertising agencies in the administration of sponsorship projects?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: May I first correct your question sir? I never contact Mr. Guité. Mr. Guité came willingly at my office at his request. Secondly, I never pointed any advertising agency. 

May I say Mr. Chair, that I was not asked before coming here to have an opening statement.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Madame Huguette Tremblay testified to this committee that your office, on several instances called Mr. Guité's office and yet you're testifying that the contact was always initiated by Mr. Guité and never by your office?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: You said sir, did you contact, you being me, I never contacted directly.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You or your office?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: My office may be have in the normal activities...

[Français]

Dans le cours des activités normales, mon bureau a probablement voulu faire un suivi quant aux dossiers qui nous avaient été envoyés par des demandeurs de commandites, et que nous avions référé. Et probablement qu'une de mes assistantes a téléphone au bureau pour savoir où était rendu ce dossier.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you find it at all peculiar that Mr. Guité who was supposedly administering a small program in one department who was supposed to report to the deputy minister would have a direct and on-going relationship with you as chief of staff to the Prime Minister and therefore the most powerful person in the government, next to the Prime Minister himself?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je pense que ce n'était pas anormal. Dans la foulée du référendum et de tout ce que le gouvernement avait décidé pour rehausser le profil du Canada et du gouvernement du Canada au Québec, je trouve parfaitement normal que son bureau ait suivi ce dossier-là de façon un peu plus particulière.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, the current Prime Minister...

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Et j'insiste pour...

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: The current Prime Minister has said, “I do know that clearly there had to be political direction” in the administration of this program. Do you agree with this Prime Minister and if so, where did such political direction come from?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne suis pas au courant d'une direction politique pour l'administration du programme. Si vous entendez par «direction politique» de hausser le profil du Canada et du gouvernement au Québec en particulier, il y a eu cette direction politique, mais ça, c'est l'essence du programme. 

Toutefois, quant à l'administration même du programme, je vous avoue que j'ai été un peu surpris de cette affirmation, et je ne sais pas ce qui a permis à celui qui l'a faite de le faire.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: You're shocked to hear that there might have been political direction but Mr. Pelletier you just admitted that you provided such direction.

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je n'ai...

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Isn't the Prime Minister's office...you just made a distinction between PMO and PCO and the responsibility of PMO's to implement the Prime Minister's political direction. When you had on-going contact with Mr. Guité wasn't that precisely the kind of political direction that the current Prime Minister has spoken of?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Ce qui est en cause, monsieur le député, ce n'est pas le programme, ce n'est pas le fait qu'il y a eu des demandes de subvention d'activités; ce qui est mis en cause par la vérificatrice générale, c'est l'administration interne, la gestion du programme.

Quant à la gestion du programme qui fait l'objet de l'examen de votre comité, il n'y a pas eu, à ma connaissance, de direction politique. 

[English]

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Kenney.

Monsieur Crête s'il vous plait, huit minutes.

[Français]

Monsieur Crête, s'il vous plaît, vous disposez de huit minutes.

M. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques): Merci, monsieur le président. 

Monsieur Pelletier, vous avez dit, tantôt, que vous aviez des communications une fois par deux mois, environ, avec M. Guité. Par contre, Mme Huguette Tremblay, qui était une proche collaboratrice de M. Guité, a affirmé devant le comité que votre bureau téléphonait régulièrement. Vous avez admis tantôt, effectivement, que des gens de votre bureau avaient pu avoir téléphoné.

Toutefois, j'aimerais en savoir davantage quant aux raisons pour lesquelles les appels téléphoniques se faisaient, effectivement. De plus, à quel rythme se faisaient ces appels téléphoniques?

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, au lendemain du référendum, il n'y avait pas beaucoup, en particulier, de députés ministériels à l'est du Québec, de sorte que beaucoup de contribuables se servaient du bureau du premier ministre pour cheminer leurs demandes. Et c'est dans le cheminement de ces dossiers que les gens de mon bureau, j'imagine, communiquaient avec le bureau de M. Guité, qui administrait le programme des commandites, pour savoir où était rendue une demande, si elle avait été acceptée, à quel moment elle serait acceptée, quel serait le niveau de commandites, etc. C'était le traitement normal des dossiers que tout ministre ou tout député fait faire par le bureau de son comté.

¿ (0930) 

M. Paul Crête: À ce moment-là, vous ne semblez pas vraiment être au courant du type d'échanges qu'il y avait, mais c'est l'hypothèse que vous mettez de l'avant.

M. Jean Pelletier: C'est-à-dire que quand on est directeur du bureau du premier ministre, on ne voit pas tous les dossiers, il y en a trop. Alors, ce sont des contacts normaux entre les membres du personnel du bureau du premier ministre et les membres du personnel administratif d'un bureau. On veut savoir: «La demande de la Ville de Saint-Hyacinthe que le député Loubier nous a demandé de cheminer, où est-elle rendue, sera-t-elle acceptée, sera-t-elle subventionnée, à quel niveau? Ils nous posent des questions, alors donnez-nous les informations pour qu'on puisse leur répondre.»

M. Paul Crête: Avez-vous des exemples où les gens avaient l'impression que la demande serait refusée et qu'il y avait une nouvelle intervention de la part de votre bureau pour obtenir...

M. Jean Pelletier: Il y a sûrement la demande du député de Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, un député bloquiste, qui m'a personnellement téléphoné, me demandant si je pouvais l'aider à mieux faire célébrer l'anniversaire de la ville de Saint-Hyacinthe. Je ne voyais pas pourquoi les gens de cette ville ne seraient pas heureux de célébrer leur anniversaire, alors je suis intervenu au nom d'un député de l'opposition, un député bloquiste. J'étais heureux de le faire. Comme j'ai réussi, j'ai l'impression que M. Loubier était très heureux, tout comme les gens de Saint-Hyacinthe, et je n'ai pas de remords quant à ce dossier, croyez-moi.

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, avez-vous d'autres exemples d'interventions que vous avez eu à faire?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne me souviens pas d'autres cas en particulier. Je me souviens de celui-là, parce que M. Loubier lui-même l'a rappelé à l'attention du public, il y a quelques semaines.

M. Paul Crête: Vous ne vous souvenez donc pas d'autres cas. Le Toronto Star du 13 mars 2004 révèle que vous appeliez à peu près chaque mois M. Pierre Tremblay, qui était le successeur de M. Guité à la tête du programme des commandites. L'article de M. Robert Crib s'appuie sur le témoignage d'une fonctionnaire anonyme ayant travaillé à Travaux publics.

Je voudrais savoir si vous niez l'affirmation suivante, qui était attribuée à cette dénonciatrice citée par le Toronto Star, et je cite: «Pelletier appelait [Pierre Tremblay] sur une base régulière pour parler des commandites.» Niez-vous cette affirmation?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je dois dire d'abord que mes relations personnelles avec M. Tremblay étaient plus étroites qu'avec M. Guité, parce que M. Tremblay avait occupé une fonction dans un cabinet ministériel avant de devenir fonctionnaire. Alors, je le connaissais personnellement beaucoup mieux que M. Guité.

Maintenant, je voyais souvent M. Tremblay qui prenait son déjeuner au Club des journalistes au moment où j'y mangeais aussi, de temps en temps. Alors, j'ai pu appeler M. Tremblay. Je ne m'en souviens pas précisément, mais j'ai pu l'appeler.

M. Paul Crête: Je répète la citation: «Pelletier appelait [Pierre Tremblay] sur une base régulière pour parler des commandites.» L'appeliez-vous sur une base régulière pour parler des commandites?

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, si je m'en souvenais, je vous rappellerais. Était-ce régulier ou épisodique, honnêtement, je ne sais pas. Cependant, je ne nie pas que j'avais des conversations téléphoniques de temps en temps avec Pierre Tremblay.

M. Paul Crête: Des conversations téléphoniques que vous initiez vous-même. Tantôt, vous nous avez dit que ce n'était jamais vous qui appeliez M. Guité.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai jamais appelé M. Guité.

M. Paul Crête: En revanche, vous avez appelé M. Tremblay.

M. Jean Pelletier: Enfin, de mémoire, je n'ai jamais appelé M. Guité. J'ai appelé de temps en temps M. Tremblay.

M. Paul Crête: Avez-vous déjà appelé M. Gagliano pour des commandites?

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, j'avais des relations avec tous les ministres du Cabinet de façon régulière, en particulier avec les ministres politiques responsables des régions. M. Gagliano était le ministre responsable du Québec, alors j'avais bien sûr des contacts réguliers avec lui. Est-ce que, au cours d'un appel téléphonique ou d'une rencontre, il a été question des commandites? Sûrement. Toutefois, c'est toujours pour savoir si le programme fonctionne, si le but devant être atteint par le programme est atteint. Ce n'est pas pour me mêler du choix des intermédiaires, des conditions financières de contrats, de l'attribution de contrats, etc. Nous ne nous sommes jamais mêlés de cela. C'est très clair.

M. Paul Crête: Pour qu'une demande soit acceptée ou non, avez-vous eu des échanges avec M. Gagliano?

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai sûrement dû dire à M. Gagliano que par exemple, dans le cas du Grand Prix de Montréal qui demandait d'être subventionné, c'était un événement extrêmement important pour l'économie de Montréal et qu'il devait avoir un oeil sympathique à l'égard de ce dossier. J'ai sûrement dit cela.

M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que vous avez déjà eu...

M. Jean Pelletier: Vous savez, je ne sais trop. Il y a eu près de 2 000 dossiers subventionnés m'a-t-on dit. Les gens qui administraient le programme n'avaient pas connaissance de l'importance plus ou moins grande de chaque événement dans toutes les localités où cela se passait. Alors ils s'informaient à savoir telle activité c'est quoi, cela rejoint combien de monde, est-ce que cela a de l'importance ou c'est simplement le projet de deux trois personnes. Les gens qui administraient le programme avaient le devoir de s'informer pour comprendre, je dirais, la nature des demandes, l'importance d'une demande relative, d'une demande par rapport à une autre. Alors ils s'informaient, et auprès de nous et auprès d'autres, j'en suis convaincu.

¿ (0935) 

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, vous avez dit tout à l'heure que vous aviez eu des contacts avec plusieurs ministres responsables politiques. Est-ce que vous avez eu des contacts de ce type avec M. Martin concernant les commandites ou avec quelqu'un de son bureau?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas que je sache, monsieur.

M. Paul Crête: Ni avec personne de son bureau?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai pas souvenance d'avoir eu de contacts avec l'ancien ministre des Finances ou avec les gens de son bureau relatifs à ce programme.

M. Paul Crête: Sur le programme des commandites.

M. Jean Pelletier: Sur ce programme-là.

M. Paul Crête: Sur la question du Fonds sur l'unité canadienne, est-ce que vous avez déjà eu des contacts avec le bureau de M. Martin?

M. Jean Pelletier: Est-ce que le Fonds de l'unité canadienne fait partie du mandat de la vérification?

[English]

The Chair: Are you asking me?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: It is a question on the unity fund, Mr. Chairman, and I'm asking if it's within the mandate of this committee.

The Chair: I believe it is because we're dealing with the sponsorship program, Mr. Pelletier, and there is no question that the policies of the Government of Canada regarding trying to prevent the separation of Quebec, if I can use that terminology, seemed to be very much a part of it, so I would think that the unity fund would be part of this debate. 

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Est-ce que vous répéteriez la question?

[English]

The Chair: A point of order.

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova): Could we ask whether it is in reference and it is part of chapters 3, 4 and 5 to the law clerk?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, two comments. One, I'd like to take that comment under advisement, if I may, and defer this question until I've had a chance to respond and study the question more closely. But let me just add a second comment. 

Whether it is within or without the terms of reference of this committee is a fancy way of asking whether the question is relevant, and relevancy is a hard thing to define in the context of this inquiry. I'll look at the AG's report and I'll see to what extent there's evidence in there of a connection with this, but I'm not so sure that's the answer to your question. 

The Chair: Okay, at this point in time, Mr. Pelletier, you may defer answering questions on the unity fund until we--

Mr. Thibault.

Hon. Robert Thibault: The instructions that you have as Chair were directly given to witnesses who appeared before, that they were relieved from their confidentiality on cabinet matters relative to chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General's report, so questioning a witness who is bound by confidentiality on other points might be relevant. 

The Chair: Well, Mr. Pelletier has not been in the cabinet of the Government of Canada, so I'm not sure that actually applies. The law clerk has reserved a decision. Until we hear from the clerk, I say you may, if you so desire, Mr. Pelletier, defer from answering the question at this point in time. 

Mr. Crête and Mr. Toews. 

[Français]

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur le président, je voulais simplement dire que l'argent du fonds de l'unité vient du même programme des commandites. Ce serait donc normal qu'on puisse répondre à ces questions. C'est la même source de fonds en bout de ligne. Donc l'argument m'apparaît pertinent. Si vous préférez qu'on attende pour y revenir, vous me le dites.

[English]

The Chair: I agreed and I suggested that it would, but the law clerk deferred an opinion. Therefore we have to withhold and we will get the answer to your question once we've had a response from the clerk in a positive vein. 

Mr. Toews. 

Mr. Vic Toews: I'd just like to add the comment that no one knew about the unity fund when the Auditor General was doing here report and so--

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Is this a point of order?

The Chair: It's all part of this point of order raised with the unity fund. 

Mr. Vic Toews: No one knew about the unity fund when the audit was going on by the Auditor General. Now I think it's incumbent upon us to in fact explore the relationship between the sponsorship program and the secret honey pot, as the Prime Minister's Office called it. 

The Chair: Madame Jennings, you have a point on this issue.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Premièrement, compte tenu du fait qu'il a été établi par des témoins, devant ce comité, que l'argent, et ce, dès le début du programme des commandites, provenait d'un fonds discrétionnaire de l'ancien premier ministre, et deuxièmement, compte tenu du fait que ce fonds a servi au moins pour la première année fiscale, sinon pour les deux premières années fiscales du programme, j'ai de la difficulté à comprendre comment il se fait qu'une question ou des questions concernant la gestion de ce programme des commandites ne soient pas pertinentes.

¿ (0940) 

[English]

The Chair: Would that be relevant?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have a difficulty understanding how questions regarding the management of that discretionary fund as it relates to the sponsorship, the moneys that were given over to sponsorship, would not be pertinent, i.e., that they are pertinent, in my view.

The Chair: In my view, they are as well, but the law clerk has reserved a decision at this point in time and he will give it later on this morning.

Mr. Crête, your time has expired, but once we've had the ruling, we will ask that particular question to Mr. Pelletier, if the law clerk feels that it is in order.

[Français]

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur le président, combien de temps me restait-il avant que ce débat ne s'amorce? Combien avais-je de temps, à même mes huit minutes, avant que ce débat ne s'amorce?

[English]

The Chair: The clerk stopped the clock exactly on eight minutes. 

[Français]

Monsieur Proulx, vous avez la parole, s'il vous plaît.

M. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer): Merci, monsieur le président.

Bonjour, monsieur Pelletier. Bonjour, monsieur Pratt. Merci, monsieur Pelletier, de votre disponibilité pour venir répondre aux questions de ce comité. Pour commencer, j'aimerais savoir de quelle année à quelle année vous avez travaillé pour le premier ministre Chrétien à titre de chef de cabinet. Votre titre était-il chef de cabinet?

M. Jean Pelletier: En fait, je suis entré au service de M. Chrétien, qui était chef de l'opposition, le 1er juillet 1991. Je suis devenu directeur de cabinet du premier ministre le 4 novembre 1993, et j'ai quitté ma fonction de directeur de cabinet du premier ministre le 4 mai 2001.

M. Marcel Proulx: Merci.

M. Jean Pelletier: Et j'ai quitté définitivement le cabinet du premier ministre le 30 juin 2001.

M. Marcel Proulx: Merci. Avant votre travail pour M. Chrétien, alors qu'il était chef de l'opposition, je crois comprendre que vous avez été fait partie de la vie politique—d'une autre vie politique—dans la ville de Québec, et que vous avez été journaliste. Ce faisant, pour vous, la politique et les rouages d'un gouvernement, ce n'était pas tout à fait nouveau?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, ce n'était pas tout à fait nouveau. Même si les paliers municipal, provincial et fédéral sont trois paliers différents quant à l'organisation de la gouvernance publique, il y a de grandes similitudes.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord. Monsieur Pelletier, puisque vous étiez dans le milieu fédéral depuis 1991, quand vous êtes arrivé au bureau du premier ministre en 1993, puis-je comprendre ou assumer que vous étiez au courant des antécédents—et je ne vous dis pas cela de façon péjorative—ou du travail que M. Chuck Guité avait accompli sous le gouvernement précédent, soit sous le gouvernement conservateur?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'étais pas au courant dans le détail, mais on m'avait dit que cet homme-là était en place dans les fonctions qu'il continuait d'exercer et qu'il les avait exercées depuis un certain nombre d'années apparemment. J'ai pris pour acquis que c'était à la satisfaction de ses supérieurs, puisqu'il était toujours en place. Évidemment, il ne m'appartenait pas à moi de décider s'il devait y avoir des mutations ou des changements au niveau des Travaux publics.

Il faudrait qu'ici que je vous donne une idée de la philosophie qui nous animait au bureau premier ministre. Le lendemain de son assermentation comme premier ministre, M. Chrétien a rencontré tous les sous-ministres et les chefs d'agences. Il a été très clair, il a dit : « Vous, les sous-ministres et les chefs d'agences, vous êtes responsables des aspects administratifs et législatifs du gouvernement. C'est votre territoire, c'est votre responsabilité et il n'appartient qu'à vous de remplir ce terrain-là. » Les bureaux politiques, le mien, le PMO ou les cabinets des ministres sont responsables des aspects politiques et j'ai clairement indiqué que je voudrais que chacun reste dans son secteur. Que les sous-ministres donnent les avis législatifs et administratifs à leurs ministres, que leurs cabinets politiques donnent des avis politiques, les ministres après cela prendront les décisions.

¿ (0945) 

M. Marcel Proulx: Monsieur Pelletier, je m'excuse, mais en 1993, et cela a été déposé devant le comité, il y avait déjà eu des articles dans les médias à l'effet que M. Guité, de façon assez facile, pouvait changer les règles du jeu selon son interprétation, c'était connu. Est-ce qu'à ce moment-là, vous ne pensez pas qu'il aurait pu y avoir une intervention ou il y en a peut-être eu une, sans dire que M. Guité ne devait pas demeurer là? Ne pensez-vous pas qu'il y aurait pu y avoir ou qu'il y a eu une intervention à l'effet de dire : « Attention, un drapeau rouge, cette personne-là a déjà une certaine réputation »?

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, vous faites allusion à des articles de presse, dites-vous, dont je n'ai pas eu connaissance en aucune façon.

M. Marcel Proulx: Parfait.

Monsieur Pelletier, de 1993 et jusqu'à la fin de sa carrière, M. Guité a profité d'une ascension de promotions à un rythme assez particulier. Il a commencé au titre de EX1 pour se rendre au titre de EX4. Est-ce que ces promotions-là, d'une façon ou d'une autre, de façon directe ou indirecte, étaient approuvées soit par votre bureau ou par, à votre connaissance, le bureau du ministre des Travaux publics?

M. Jean Pelletier: Nous n'avons eu rien à faire avec la gestion du dossier d'employé de l'État de M. Guité et vous m'apprenez de EX1 à je ne sais pas quoi, à EX4. Je ne suis pas au courant de cela. La promotion des fonctionnaires ne relevait en aucune façon du bureau du premier ministre et nous n'y avons pas été mêlés en aucune façon. Est-ce que le Conseil privé a été mêlé à cela? Est-ce que le bureau du ministre a été mêlé à cela? Je ne le sais pas, vous leur demanderez.

M. Marcel Proulx: Merci. 

Monsieur Pelletier, est-ce que vous avez eu connaissance, durant le temps que M. Guité remplissait ses fonctions, qu'il a eu des relations ou qu'il a travaillé en étroite collaboration avec des corporations de la Couronne? Est-ce que vous étiez au courant que M. Guité pouvait transiger avec des corporations de la Couronne pour augmenter les fonds qu'il pouvait gérer ou pour faire des projets de façon conjointe entre son domaine, à l'intérieur de Travaux publics, et des corporations de la Couronne? 

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai été informé qu'il y avait un multi-partnership de commandites dans le dossier relié à l'affaire de Maurice Richard, mais c'est le seul dossier où j'ai entendu parler qu'il y avait un pool de commanditaires associés dans le .

M. Marcel Proulx: Est-ce que vous aviez entendu parler ou est-ce que vous avez participé à cette amalgamation de fonds? 

M. Jean Pelletier: En aucune façon.

M. Marcel Proulx: Avez-vous déjà eu l'occasion, monsieur Pelletier, de façon directe ou moins directe, de parler aux individus qui dirigeaient les compagnies de communications genre M. Gosselin, M. Boulay, M. Lafleur, M. Brault? Avez-vous déjà eu des discussions, des conversations ou des rencontres avec ces gens-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai jamais eu de rencontres formelles avec ces gens-là. Je connais M. Lafleur, personnellement. Je ne sais pas qui est M. Brault. Je ne connais aucunement les gens comme M. Gosselin et qui étaient les autres?

¿ (0950) 

M. Marcel Proulx: Il y avait Gosselin, Boulay de Everest, il y avait M. Brault.

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai rencontré M. Boulay une fois de façon sociale, dans une réception, mais je n'ai eu aucun contact professionnel avec ces agences.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: 

Merci, Monsieur Pelletier.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Mr. Proulx.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please, eight minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairperson, could I just have a point of order at the beginning of my remarks? Pursuant to....

The Chair: She raised a point of order. She is entitled to raise a point of order, like everybody else raises points of order. So she's entitled to be heard as well.

While you quote these articles, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I understand, due to the time constraints, the conversations with Mr. Pelletier were actually verbal, they were not written. I'm not sure whether he was actually advised that he could have, should have, want--or whatever the terminology may be--make an opening statement. It is not here. 

You've heard the law clerk say that it's not mandatory. It's not obliged. Informal statements in the media do not constitute communication from the committee that he has to make a statement.

Mr. Thibault.

Hon. Robert Thibault: It is my understanding from the instruction, the clarifications made by the clerk earlier that the witness has a right to make an opening statement. Generally, we limit them to their time. 

I've appeared a number of times. I was always advised that I would be limited in my time, but I was never told that I must have an opening statement. I understood earlier when the same point was brought that the witness is not required to have an opening statement.

The Chair: Well, thank you, Mr. Thibault. You of course have the experience of being a minister. The public accounts committee has always limited, sorry, not “always limited” statements. We now limit opening statements to five minutes normally. The reason for that is some number years ago, ministers and others would come in here and take up 20 minutes, 40 minutes, the better part of an hour on an opening statement, and virtually no time for questions. 

So we said because the public accounts committee is a committee of accountability, we have the facts normally from the Auditor General's report before us. We don't need a long, long, long, long opening statement, and therefore said “Five minutes, present your case”, and we go from there.

Mr. Walsh has pointed out in previous interventions in this committee that witnesses have an obligation to lay the facts before the committee before any questions are asked. That's Mr. Walsh's--

Hon. Robert Thibault: Can we get clarification?

The Chair: Let me ask Mr. Walsh. Is that correct, Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Rob Walsh: That may be correct in terms of the language I used, but not meaning to say that it gave rise to an obligation to provide an opening statement. 

What I meant by that was that you can't simply wait and sit on your hands for the right question to come along before you tell what it is you have to say. There's an obligation overriding all answers that everything you have to say about the matter that is the subject of the inquiry will at some point be said; maybe in a closing statement if the right question hasn't been asked, or maybe in an opening statement, but everything should be put on the table by the witness and nothing withheld for lack of the right question.

The Chair: So that's the issue, Mr. Thibault. Mr. Pelletier may wish to avail himself of closing a statement or not, but the point being this is not a court of law. We are here to get, on the public record, on behalf of Canadians, the facts, all the facts.

We will continue on, but these points of order just take away from the opportunity to ask questions for the witness.

So Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, eight minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I can express my surprise, though, at the absence of an opening statement, Mr. Pelletier, because this has been such a major issue for Parliament. It has been a very important part of history, in terms of the Auditor General's report and our work, as the public accounts committee, to get to the bottom of it.

Of course, you will know, Mr. Pelletier, the present Prime Minister has said this is a scandal that must be addressed and the former Prime Minister, your boss, has disagreed somewhat with those statements. So I think it would have been useful to have that statement.

Having said that, let me ask you: you said there were meetings with Chuck Guité, at his request. You indicated, as well, you met occasionally with Mr. Pierre Tremblay. Is it a regular occurrence for the chief-of-staff to the Prime Minister to accept to receive a meeting with a public servant at the level of Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay?

¿ (0955) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Just before answering your question, Madam, I will say that I'm very sad to deceive you, but nobody told me about any opening statement requirements at all or possibility, so I feel completely happy with myself without.

Secondly, your question. I think that there was, I should say, no more important fact for the then Prime Minister of Canada than the unity of the country. I think he has made a few decisions that are well-known about that subject after the years of referendum. So it was not at all uninconvenient that his office would follow this file in all its sectors with a particular eye.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You didn't answer my question. Is it a regular occurrence for the chief-of-staff to meet with the bureaucrats at this level?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think, Madam, the necessity of the file makes the necessity.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I would have seen the janitor if it would have helped the cause of Canadian unity.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Would it not be the usual course of business to have approved such a meeting through the bureaucracy of the Department of Public Works?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Everybody knew this was happening. At the minister's level, they knew; at PCO, they knew. So why should I have taken out an ad in the paper to say that I was meeting Mr. Guité? It was the normal course of a very important file, to which the Prime Minister had a special eye on.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, the questions are a result of the fact my understanding is it's very unusual for the chief-of-staff of the Prime Minister to actually meet with the public servants at that level without some vetting of that decision through--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Madam, you're entitled to your opinion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right.

Did you or your office inform the Minister of Public Works, perhaps his executive assistant or chief-of-staff, the Prime Minister or the deputy minister of public works that you, in fact, would be having these meetings with Mr. Guité, Mr. Tremblay or anyone else pertaining to the Sponsorship Program?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I just mentioned a minute ago that it was at the knowledge of the minister's and his office that Mr. Guité, once every two months, would have the conversation with me. So that answers your question.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So the Minister of Public Works was fully aware of your meetings with his mid-level staff?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sure he was.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can you tell me--you mentioned the referendum, the national unity issue--in the lead-up to the referendum in Quebec, did you ever intone, direct or ask any public servant, political operative or politician, to bend or circumvent any standard Treasury Board operating procedures?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. And in any circumstance it was, no. It never happened.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

What is your connection, could you tell us, in terms of the ad firms in question, as listed by the Auditor General in her report? And I assume you've read the report in question. Did you ever meet with any of the management or staff from any of the firms in question?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: 

I think I've already answered that question when Mr.--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm asking it again.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I never have met these guys professionally.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Were you ever present at any fundraising events where the principals or staff members from any of the firms in question were in attendance?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know. I attended the normal fundraising dinner of the Prime Minister in Toronto and in Montreal. There were over 1,000 people. Were they in the room? I don't know, maybe, but not more than that. I don't know.

À (1000) 

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It is our understanding that there were regular meetings between you and Chuck Guité and Roger Collet. In fact it's been suggested that you had weekly meetings on a Tuesday to discuss the sponsorship file. What was the nature of those discussions pertaining to the sponsorship file?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not weekly meetings, Madam, I'm sorry. I could probably, with my agendas, if ever the committee is interested, give the dates, but not every two weeks. That's not true.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could you tell us if you met regularly at places outside of your office, perhaps Mama Teresa's?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't recall any lunch or dinner with me and Mr. Guité--not one. I had lunch with the Minister of Public Works, or dinner, many times, or at Mama Teresa's or at other restaurants. I'm happy to know that you're interested in my social life, but I don't think that I ever had a meal with Mr. Guité.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

It's been suggested in the--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I should have invited Mrs. Tremblay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, in fact I was just going to ask you about Mrs. Tremblay. It has been suggested that your comments to Mr. Tremblay, which were clearly sexist in nature, were out of character and that in fact may have reflected the pressure and difficulties you're experiencing at the present time in the sponsorship scandal, so my question--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think you're mixed up with two ladies, Madam.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask about Madam Bédard, sorry. We'll get the women right here, won't we. Let me ask you about your remarks to Madam Bédard because it has been suggested that those remarks to Madam Bédard were out of character. Were they out of character or did they reflect the fact that you were feeling somewhat under pressure, given being under the microscope with respect to the sponsorship file?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Madam, as there's two legal procedures concerning the Government of Canada and me at the present moment, I don't think it's proper for me to comment on this matter.

The Chair: Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, we will leave it there.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, please, eight minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much. 

The Auditor General has referred to what has happened in the sponsorship affair as commissions to communications agencies while hiding the source of funding and the true substance of the transactions. I understand, of course, that you came to VIA Rail long after the matter related to the investigation by the Auditor General, but, as a result of the Auditor General's findings, did you direct staff in VIA Rail to look specifically at the involvement of VIA in terms of transactions hiding the source of funding?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: As I was not at VIA when all these files took place, I was not in the position, really, to make any personal judgment. The audit committee of VIA looked into the matter and the board has looked into the matter. But I know that I heard in the press this morning that Mr. LaFrancois is coming to see you tomorrow. He's the chief executive of VIA. He's more in line with these files that I haven't been and really I don't have anything to say on the VIA files because I don't know them.

Mr. Vic Toews: 

All right. So you are aware that VIA might have been involved in that but you didn't any specific directions to the staff to look into that particular issue.

We heard from Mr. Guité that the 1995 referendum in Quebec and the events surrounding that referendum were, in fact, a war, if I can use that expression. The unity file certainly, whether we classify it as a war or not, must have been one of the most important files on the desk of the prime minister. In fact, as you indicated, the prime minister had a special eye on this file.

Now how did that special eye work? To what corners did that special eye extend? There must have been polling. There must have been strategy. There must have been direction on the file. Where do we find out that information about how that special eye of the prime minister worked in respect of this file?

À (1005) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Personally, I was more involved in the relationship between the Canadian government and the No committee, headed by Mr. Johnson in Quebec. I was involved in the relationship between the feds and the provincial Liberals, who were the No committee.

Mr. Vic Toews: Right.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: There was also a kind of an office in PCO, or in federal-provincial relations, I can't remember, headed by Howard 

Mr. Vic Toews: That wasn't the communications coordination working group, was it? Which was Mario Legault and Francine Ducros?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, Francie Ducros was with, at the time, federal relations, provincial ministers department.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. So let's talk then about this special eye of the prime minister. How did that work? Can you focus your comments on this special eye of the prime minister in following this unity file?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: During the referendum period or after the referendum period?

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, you indicated that the prime minister had a special eye on the file.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think that any Canadian prime minister should have a special eye on the file of the unity of the country. Any. Regardless of parties.

Mr. Vic Toews: Right, and I agree with you. I agree with you. All I'm asking is--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: --And I think that Mr. Chrétien had that file much to his heart and knowing that, we were trying to help in all ways possible.

Mr. Vic Toews: Okay, that's the point, Mr. Pelletier. Helping in all ways possible. You must have been involved in strategy, you must have been involved in polling, you must have been involved in directing the file. Certainly the communication agencies were an important part of this file. I mean, Chrétien has got this on his heart, he's got it in his eye, he must have not only had it in his heart and his eye, but he must have also had it on his fingertips.

What did he do?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm not too sure, Mr. Chairman, that this question is relevant to your mandate . We're not here by the side door to open the whole management of the referendum file--

The Chair: --Okay, monsieur Pelletier. Monsieur Pelletier, if you're asking for my opinion, on this particular question and Mr. Toews is trying to get a feel for--if I understand it correctly, Mr. Toews, you can correct me if I'm wrong--the dynamics of the office that you, at the PMO, the prime minister, yourself, and the relationship to this issue regarding sponsorships, chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the auditor general's report where she tells us about all the things that have gone wrong, and we're trying, as a committee, to find out who was involved in managing these files, who was involved in making these decisions, and Mr. Toews has suggested, and I think he quoted yourself when he said there was no more important file than the unity file for the prime minister and no doubt that applied to you as well, as his chief of staff.

Now the sponsorship program is integrally involved in this unity file and Mr. Guité is on record as saying this was war, and therefore he's made the comments that he made on the record before this committee that is now public testimony. To understand the dynamics, I think, as Mr. Toews is trying to find out, who were the players, who were making the decisions, I think the question is quite relevant, so...point of order, Mr. Thibault?

Hon. Robert Thibault: 

I understand your point, Mr. Chair, to the relevance, and I think it points to the relevance, but you also have to recognize, and I'm sure you do, that our witness was an staff during that period and is bound by confidentiality with cabinet material and the veil is lifted, as we've been instructed in accordance to specific criteria--chapters 3, 4, and 5, and relevant. I think the question should be and the witness should have the right to answer only to those that are relevant and not to the full administration of government at that time.

The Chair: Well, this is true, Mr. Thibault, but the point of Mr. Toews, if I understand it correctly, was, to what extent was Mr. Pelletier, and therefore, by implication, the prime minister, directly involved in the sponsorship program, because the sponsorship program was, according to Mr. Pelletier, no more important file for the prime minister, therefore...

I would have thought, and for all Canadians, true, and all Canadians want to know who was running this issue. Did the prime minister have a hands off affair when it comes to the sponsorship program? Did Mr. Pelletier, his chief of staff, have a hands off attitude when it came to managing the sponsorship program? 

Let me finish. You asked my opinion. Mr. Dingwall, yesterday, would suggest that he was focusing on rules and he said that he wasn't intimately involved in this file, so I think Mr. Toews's question to find out who was managing the issue of the sponsorship programs, which is the heart of the matter, is a relevant question. Mr. LeBlanc.

À (1010) 

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe you inadvertently, perhaps, said that Mr. Pelletier said that the sponsorship file, there was no more an important file for the prime minister than sponsorship. We can check the blues, but I remember Mr. Pelletier saying that it was the unity of the country, and not the sponsorship file particularly.

The Chair: You're correct; he did say the unity of the country, but the sponsorship program, according to Mr. Guité, was an integral part, if not a major part, of managing the unity file because he said it was war and that he felt that rules had to be broken if that was the way that things were. That was Mr. Guité said that. Well, bent, broken...

Therefore, Mr. Toews, your question is relevant.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you. I just want to make a point on the same point of order. We're all talking about the objective and how important the objective is, but nobody wants to talk about the administration, whether it's Mr. Dingwall, whether it's Mr. Gagliano, whether it's Mr. Pelletier. What I'm asking, Mr. Pelletier is, so how did this actually work in its mechanism? That's what we're here to figure out, because we want to know how this system broke down. Nobody doubts the good intentions of the prime minister for the time being. What we are looking at his how did this system break down? Who had their fingers in this pie, from the prime minister's office to the actual awarding of the contracts, and that's where I was starting. We are not dealing here, Mr. Chair, with an unsophisticated witness. I can presume certain things of this type of a witness that he is knowledgeable about these affairs.

Hon. Robert Thibault: Just one element of what you said, Mr. Chair, that has me concerned, is that, you took the evidence that is presented before the committee by one witness that has not yet appeared, but regardless, the testimony is there, it has been released as gospel. I don't think we can say that any of the testimony is false or correct, according to one as opposed to the other.

The Chair: I can quote testimony on the record, paraphrase to the best of my ability, because all testimony is deemed to be the facts. I made the opening statement that they are required to reply truthfully to all questions, and that applied to Mr. Guité two years ago just the same as it applies to Mr. Pelletier today, therefore, if that was his testimony, that was his testimony. Therefore, I'm getting back to Mr. Toews. Please continue.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you. You have some indication of the relevance, Mr. Pelletier. Could you let us know how the administration of that worked coming out of the prime minister's office?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I would say that before and during the referendum, the publicity that was handled by Public Works department, PMO had nothing to do with that.

Mr. Vic Toews: So PMO gave no direction to the...

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Absolutely no direction to that.

Mr. Vic Toews: On the most important file on the prime minister's desk, there was...

Mr. Jean Pelletier: For publicity, no, sir. It was handled by Public Works and we didn't manage that. The sponsorship program--

À (1015) 

Mr. Vic Toews: So they--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: --would you let me finish?--the sponsorship program came after the referendum and was dealt the way I explained already to this committee since I'm here this morning. We would, I should say, transmit the request that we had; we would give our opinions on what should be accepted or not; we would not make the decisions; we would then ask what decision was made, at what level, so that we were able to go back to the people asking for assistance for the program. The administration of the program was never in the PMO.

Mr. Vic Toews: No, and I didn't suggest that, but there was direction from PMO is what I was asking about. 

But what you're saying--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: The direction, sir, was the program--

Mr. Vic Toews: Let me finish my question.

What you are just telling us now is that sometime after the referendum, the focus changed and the sponsorship program was an issue entirely different from the unity file. This sponsorship file had nothing to do with the unity file, is your testimony to us just now.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, I didn't say that, sir.

Mr. Vic Toews: What did you say?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I said that the publicity during the referendum was one thing, and we didn't interfere at all after that. But after the result of the referendum, it was felt by the government that we should make higher the profile of Canada and the Government of Canada, especially in the Province of Quebec. We insisted then that the program be more focused to deliver more highlights.

Mr. Vic Toews: That was a decision of cabinet at that time?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Walsh has something to say.

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chair, in response to the earlier point of order about the acceptability of the question posed by Monsieur Crête I believe regarding the National Unity Fund, I have looked at the auditor general's report and I think I can answer your question without going much beyond Chapter 3 or into 4 and 5.

Chapter 3 talks about the Sponsorship Program and that the Sponsorship Program was designed to increase the federal presence and visibility in communities across Canada. It also talks about the manner by which this was done in paragraph 3.44, appeared designed to provide commissions to communications agencies while hiding the source of funds and the true nature of the transactions and the parliamentary appropriation process was not respected.

Some of these same suggestions it seems to me, have come up in the public discourse with regard to the National Unity Fund but in any event it seems to me the National Unity Fund--and I don't know in any intimate detail what it's purpose was beyond what it's name implies--was a fund available to the government and government officials for purposes of national unity, one assumes.

It would appear that the Sponsorship Fund used it's resources in that direction from what I've heard in testimony before this committee and indeed advertising may have done so as well insofar as all three areas appear to be related to national unity, I would think that a question pertaining to National Unity Fund is relevant to the inquiry of this committee.

However let me point out that the issue arising here and if my memory serves, the point arose from a comment by the witness regarding the acceptability of the question. On the one side is a question of whether this subject matter is pertinent to the inquiry of this committee. In my view a committee has broad latitude about what subject matters or lines of inquiry it allows to enter into it's inquiries. 

On the other side of the coin here however and the one that perhaps concerns the witness, it to what extent he may not be able to answer some questions by virtue of some oath to which he is subject or were he governed by the order in council to which it applies. That's something else and we can look at that.

The order in council which applies to minister's and former minister's and I wouldn't think it applied to this witness, appears to be limited to matters relating to certain activities of the Sponsorship Program--I'm reading from the Order in Council in paragraph A.I--certain activities of the Sponsorship Program, advertising activities and the management of public opinion research of the Government of Canada referred to in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Perhaps the witness is concerned by reason of some other oath he took as a federal government official, I'm not sure, but that is a different question. It's been my view and I think the committee has shared this view that notwithstanding any oath that may be out there, witnesses, including federal civil servants are obliged to speak fully to the committee and truthfully on all matters raised.

Their entitlement to not answer any question does not turn on whether in their view the question is relevant, that's a matter for the committee to determine in it's own wisdom as it sees fit. The only issue for the witness is whether there's some oath that constrains them and it's our view, my view certainly, subject to the committee's agreement that any oath that may be out there is not...does not apply as against the parliamentary committee and I expressed the view earlier that in my view may apply also to oaths upon cabinet ministers but the question became unnecessary when this order in council was made, releasing ministers and former ministers from their obligation to speak confidential about cabinet confidences.

So in short, in my view, the question, it seems to be is appropriate to the subject matter of this inquiry and indeed unless the witness has something to share with the committee in this regard I would think the witness is obliged to answer the questions pertaining to the National Unity Fund but it's up to the committee to make that determination.

À (1020) 

The Chair: I'm sorry Mr. Thibault. Mr. Thibault, you have a question of Mr. Walsh?

Hon. Robert Thibault: Just a brief question. Yesterday we discovered a problem, there was to do our work with the order in council and we unanimously agreed that there would be changes. that take into consideration those problems?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chair, the point to which the members refers was the date, the mention of July 1996, the committee passed a motion yesterday requesting that this order in council be amended so as to begin from December 01, 1993.

The answer to the member's question Mr. Chair, is that with regard to that previous period and until such time as the order in council is amended, a former minister or a minister might decline to answer a question relating to cabinet confidences but as I said at the opening session of this committee, that would entitle the committee to draw the adverse inference that the disclosure was not made because it would not be helpful to the governments position, but that's something for the committee to do but ostensibly the minister or former minister would be entitled to stay within his oath with regard to confidences preceding July 1996 until such time as this order in council is amended to include the earlier period as the committee requested by motion yesterday.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

I'll say this before we go to Madam Jennings. Now that we have had the clarification that questions regarding the unity file are in order, I will ask Mr. Crête to put his final question once more to Mr. Pelletier and get the answer. 

You had a question regarding national unity that Mr. Pelletier deferred. Now that we find it's within the parameters of this committee to investigate, I will ask you to ask your question regarding the unity file.

[Français]

M. Paul Crête: Je préférerais, monsieur le président, revenir à mon tour à huit minutes tantôt parce que j'ai une série de questions là-dessus, donc je voudrais commencer là-dessus.

[English]

The Chair: Very good.

Madam Jennings, please.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Merci, monsieur le président. 

Merci, monsieur Pelletier. Vous avez affirmé que vous avez rencontré M. Chuck Guité, directeur des commandites, qui a eu plusieurs promotions par la suite, mais que vous-même vous l'avez rencontré environ une fois par deux mois et que, à chaque fois, c'était à la demande même de M. Guité. Votre bureau est composé d'autres personnes que vous et compte tenu que nous avons reçu des témoignages à l'effet qu'il y avait un contact, soit téléphonique ou en personne, entre soit M. Guité ou des gens de son secteur, sa direction et le bureau du premier ministre, je vous demanderais si, à votre connaissance, d'autres personnes--comme par exemple Jean Carle qui, à l'époque, travaillait pour le bureau du premier ministre--auraient pu avoir des contacts beaucoup plus réguliers avec la direction que gérait M. Chuck Guité à l'époque où vous étiez le chef de cabinet? Je ne mets aucunement en doute que vous-même vous l'avez rencontré environ une fois par deux mois, mais j'essaie de concilier un témoignage qui contredit en partie ce que vous affirmez. Donc, je me demande si ce ne sont pas d'autres membres du personnel du premier ministre qui ont pu avoir ces contacts beaucoup plus réguliers.

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, madame, je ne peux pas dire quelle était la régularité des contacts possibles entre M. Carle et M. Guité. Je sais qu'il y en a eu et cela s'explique très aisément. M. Carle était responsable de toutes les activités du premier ministre en dehors de la Capitale fédérale et devait donc savoir, quand il préparait les suggestions de programme au premier ministre, quelles étaient les activités qu'il lui suggérerait et c'était parfaitement normal qu'il sache à ce moment-là si certaines activités avaient demandé à être subventionnées par le programme ou l'avait été ou devait l'être, et je pense qu'il est parfaitement normal que dans le cours de ses obligations quotidiennes il s'informe à cet effet et qu'il ait, dès lors, des contacts avec M. Guité ou les membres de son bureau. Je ne serais pas surpris de cela du tout.

Maintenant, quand une autre témoin a dit qu'il y avait des gens de mon bureau qui communiquaient par téléphone, j'ai expliqué plus tôt qu'il y avait des gens qui, à mon bureau, s'occupaient, je dirais, de la suite des dossiers qui nous étaient référés par toutes sortes de monde, citoyens, organismes, députés, ministres, etc., et qui, évidemment, se tenaient au courant de l'évolution de ces dossiers dans la machine administrative du programme et qui devaient téléphoner. Mais ça..

À (1025) 

Mme Marlene Jennings: Parfait. De mémoire...

M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que le simple fait que ce soient des employés non pas en autorité à mon bureau, mais des employés administratifs qui le fassent indique à quel point pour nous c'était simplement le suivi normal de dossier, comme dans tout bureau de ministre.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Parfait. De mémoire, vous-même vous avez parlé--et je pense que c'est tout à fait dans le chiffre correct--environ 2 000 événements ont été subventionnés...

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai lu cela dans les procès-verbaux.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Monsieur Pelletier, je vais vous prier de me laisser formuler ma question et là vous allez la comprendre.

Sur le nombre total des événements qui ont reçu l'approbation d'une commandite fédérale dans le cadre de ce programme de commandites, avez-vous une idée de quel pourcentage ont passé par le bureau du Premier ministre, que ce soit un simple député qui a communiqué avec votre bureau pour dire « il y a un événement dans mon comté, comment on peut formuler une demande » ou « pouvez-vous nous dire si c'est déjà déposé », qu'est-ce qui arrive avec le processus de sélection et d'approbation, ou que les événements sont arrivés directement dans le bureau du premier ministre. Avez-vous une idée de combien de dossiers de commandites proposés auront pu passer par le bureau du premier ministre à l'époque où vous étiez vous-même le chef de Cabinet?

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai beaucoup de difficulté à répondre à votre question parce qu'il y a un nombre très restreint de dossiers dont j'ai personnellement eu connaissance. Mais je ne faisais pas tout au Bureau du premier ministre. Même dans mon propre bureau, on était six personnes qui manoeuvraient des dossiers. Combien en ont-ils manoeuvrés, madame? J'ai de la difficulté à vous répondre. Je ne sais pas.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Alors, qui sont les six personnes qui touchaient à ses dossiers, premièrement? Deuxièmement, de mémoire, combien de dossiers avez-vous, vous-même, personnellement touchés?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai certainement pas, au cours de toutes ces années-là, touché à plus de 25 dossiers, peut-être, personnellement. Pour ce qui est du reste de mon bureau, je ne sais pas.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Les noms des six personnes dont vous venez de mentionner.

M. Jean Pelletier: Il faudrait que je fasse une recherche.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Alors, vous pourrez fournir ces noms au comité, par écrit, par la suite.

Dans les médias, il y a eu beaucoup de questions qui ont été posées à la période de questions, par les membres de l'opposition, qui tentaient d'impliquer les ministres du Québec, qui étaient en place à l'époque du Programme des commandites. Alors, j'aimerais savoir si vous-même étiez au courant de discussions détaillées sur l'administration du Programme des commandites, lors des réunions des ministres du Québec? 

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne me souviens pas d'aucune discussion détaillée à aucune réunion des ministres du Québec auxquelles j'ai assisté.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Est-ce que vous êtes au courant d'une discussion quelconque au sujet de la vérification interne de l'an 2000 qu'auraient pu avoir les ministres du Québec?

À (1030) 

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je n'ai pas d'indication qu'il y aurait eu des conversations sur cette vérification. Quant à moi, je peux dire au comité, puisque vous voulez que je dise tout et je suis prêt à tout dire, qu'à un moment donné j'ai entendu--vous savez, à Ottawa, il y a beaucoup de rumeurs sur la rue. Alors, s'il faut qu'on prenne chaque rumeur pour vrai, on serait en panique à journée longue--mais à un moment donné, j'ai eu toute sorte de rumeurs, autant à Ottawa qu'à Montréal, sur l'administration du programme. J'ai fait part au premier ministre des bruits que j'entendais. M. Chrétien, à ce moment-là, m'a demandé de m'entretenir avec le ministre responsable, M. Gagliano. Alors, j'ai rencontré M. Gagliano et je lui ai fait part de cela et M. Gagliano m'a dit qu'il avait eu connaissance des mêmes rumeurs et qu'il avait demandé une vérification interne. Alors, j'ai informé le premier ministre que le processus d'une vérification interne était en cours. Alors, le premier ministre m'a demandé de le tenir au courant, bien sûr, de ce qui arriverait par la suite. 

Alors, quand la vérification a été terminée, c'était au printemps 2001, je pense, ou 2000, monsieur Gagliano m'a rencontré pour me dire qu'il avait eu le résultat, qu'il n'y avait pas d'aspect criminel dans ce qu'on lui avait dit, qu'il y avait des aspects de gestion, des aspects administratifs, qui étaient fautifs et qu'il avait toute une série de recommandations qui étaient faites pour remettre les choses à l'ordre au plan de la gestion. Il avait demandé à son sous-ministre de procéder à la mise en place de ces correctifs et qu'entretemps, vraisemblablement, le programme serait suspendu dans son application.

Alors, j'ai fait part au premier ministre de ce que le ministre m'avait dit et le premier m'a dit: « Très bien, le ministre a fait ce qu'il devait faire ». C'est à mon avis, la seule implication du premier ministre, vraiment, dans le dossier administratif du programme. Pour le reste, il n'a jamais entendu parler de quoi que ce soit.

Le président: Merci beaucoup.

Monsieur Crête, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.

M. Paul Crête: Merci, monsieur le président.

Monsieur Pelletier, si on revient sur la question du Fonds de l'unité canadienne, vous savez que M. Eddie Goldenberg, qui est conseiller spécial du premier ministre, a confirmé la semaine dernière que le ministre des Finances connaissait l'existence de cette réserve depuis un bon bout de temps. Je traduis librement ce que M. Goldenberg disait: « Nous avons parlé plusieurs fois par semaine depuis neuf ans. Je ne sais pas si nous avons parlé spécifiquement sur la réserve en question, mais le ministère des Finances était certainement au courant de cette question ».

Est-ce que vous avez eu des échanges avec M. Martin sur cette question du Fonds de l'unité canadienne?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je n'ai pas eu d'échanges personnelles avec M. Martin sur le Fonds pour l'unité canadienne, mais je pense qu'effectivement le ministère des Finances était bien sûr au courant de cette réserve.

M. Paul Crête: Ils étaient au courant dans quel sens?

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, quand c'est mis dans le cadre fiscal, il faut qu'ils soient au courant.

M. Paul Crête: Donc cela veut dire que le fonds comme tel, qui a été répété d'année en année, le ministre des Finances le savait nécessairement depuis le début de la création du fonds. Cela a été accepté dans un budget.

M. Jean Pelletier: C'est votre conclusion.

M. Paul Crête: Mais moi, c'est la vôtre que je veux savoir.

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur, je ne peux pas parler pour l'ancien ministre des Finances. Je ne sais pas, moi, s'il était au courant de tel chiffre, dans telle colonne. Vous lui demanderez.

M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que vous croyez que ça serait normal que le ministre des Finances sache qu'il y a un fonds de 40 millions de dollars à l'intérieur de son budget qui existe pour l'unité canadienne?

M. Jean Pelletier: Dans les temps qui courent, ce qui est normal et ce qui est anormal, je ne le sais plus beaucoup.

M. Paul Crête: On va tous réfléchir à cela d'ailleurs!

Dans un autre ordre d'idées, par exemple, sur ce fonds-là, justement, est-ce que Option Canada a été financée à même cette réserve du Fonds pour l'unité canadienne?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne le sais pas.

M. Paul Crête: Vous ne savez pas si Option Canada, le fonds a été...

M. Jean Pelletier: Le Fonds pour l'unité canadienne n'était pas géré par le bureau du premier ministre, il était géré par le Conseil Privé. 

À (1035) 

M. Paul Crête: Mais vous savez que Option Canada...

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne connais pas la provenance de tous les fonds, de tous les programmes du gouvernement et ce n'était pas mon rôle de savoir cela. J'avais assez de travail sans prendre le travail des autres.

M. Paul Crête: Mais monsieur Pelletier, vous nous avez dit combien l'unité canadienne était une préoccupation importante du premier ministre, donc de son chef de cabinet aussi, et que Option Canada a été créé en catastrophe pour répondre à des besoins de publicité à cours terme.

Est-ce que vous nous dites que vous ne connaissiez pas l'existence de Option Canada?

M. Jean Pelletier: Ce n'est pas cela que je vous ai dit. Je vous ai dit que je ne savais pas si Option Canada était financée par la réserve de l'unité. Ça, je ne sais pas. C'est bien différent de ce que vous vouliez me faire dire.

M. Paul Crête: Moi, je ne veux rien vous faire dire, monsieur Pelletier, je vous pose des questions pour qu'on est plus d'information disponible pour savoir ce qui s'est passé exactement. 

Option Canada, que vous connaissiez, est-ce que vous pouvez me dire à quoi a servi l'argent du 4,8 millions de dollars?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je n'administrais pas Option Canada. Ce n'est pas à moi à répondre à cette question-là et je ne suis pas en mesure de répondre à cette question.

M. Paul Crête: Vous n'avez pas l'information pour cela.

M. Jean Pelletier: Non.

M. Paul Crête: Je vais passer à un autre secteur où vous avez travaillé après la scandale de la commandite, la question de la société d'État.

Je vous cite la vérificatrice générale: « Dans un petit nombre de cas troublants, des fonds de commandite ont été transférés à des sociétés d'État en utilisant des méthodes fort discutables. »

Par rapport à cela, M. Martin, le premier ministre actuel, a dit, et je le cite: « C'est impossible de croire qu'il n'y a pas eu une direction politique. Il y a quelqu'un qui décidait comment est-ce que tout cela était pour être controlé. »

Dans cette déclaration, le premier ministre semble pointer directement le bureau de l'ex-premier ministre, parce que le ministre Gagliano, à ce moment-là, ne pouvait pas mettre à contribution les sociétés d'État, seul le bureau du premier ministre pouvait le faire.

Est-ce que vous avez demandé à des sociétés d'État de s'impliquer dans le financement des projets de communication ou de commandite?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, monsieur, en aucune façon.

M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que des membres de votre bureau, même le premier ministre, ont demandé à des sociétés d'État de s'impliquer dans le financement de projets de communication?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que je peux sans hésitation répondre: « Non ».

M. Paul Crête: Donc, il n'y a aucun lien dans les commandites dont on s'est rendu compte qu'il y avait des sommes qui se transféraient entre organismes gouvernementaux.

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai répondu tout à l'heure en disant que le seul dossier dont j'ai entendu parlé, sans être impliqué du tout dans quelles que décisions que ce soient, le dossier de co-commandite, et c'était le dossier sur Maurice Richard, où j'ai appris qu'il y avait plusieurs entités que se réunissaient dans la commandite. C'est le seul dossier dont j'ai entendu parlé et nous n'avons rien eu à faire dans la décision de ce dossier-là.

M. Paul Crête: Dans un autre ordre d'idées, tantôt, la question de Mme Jennings, vous avez parlé de la vérification interne et de l'intervention du sous-ministre. Il y a eu dans le cadre de cela une rencontre le 28 septembre 2000, soit quelques semaines avant le déclenchement des élections du 27 novembre 2000.

Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de cette rencontre-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai été absent du Canada pour cause de chirurgie en juillet, août et septembre 2000. La réunion a eu lieu, ai-je lu dans le témoignage de M. Steinberg, je pense, dans les derniers jours de septembre. Je n'y ai pas participé, je n'en ai pas entendu parlé et je n'étais pas de retour à Ottawa lorsqu'elle s'est déroulée.

M. Paul Crête: À ce moment-là est-ce que vous avez été mis au courant, dans les semaines qui ont suivi après votre retour, que le bureau du Conseil privé convoquait une rencontre pour traiter d'un rapport de vérification interne qui soulevait des problèmes administratifs alors que vous nous avez dit que le...

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, monsieur. Je n'ai pas eu connaissance ni de la réunion de la fin septembre ni des suites qu'elle a données.

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, vous avez dit que vous aviez entendu des rumeurs à Ottawa, à Montréal. Vous étiez intervenu auprès de M. Gagliano pour pouvoir informer le premier ministre. Il vous a dit qu'il y avait une vérification interne en cours et vous avez transmis cette information au premier ministre. Ensuite vous ne vous êtes plus intéressé à ce dossier.

M. Jean Pelletier: Ce n'est pas ce que j'ai dit tout à l'heure. J'ai dit qu'après avoir eu les explications de M. Gagliano, à la suite du résultat de la vérification interne, j'avais informé le premier ministre que le ministre m'avait fait part des résultats, qu'il y avait des correctifs à apporter, qu'il y avait un plan—je ne me souviens pas—en 37 points pour corriger ce qui devait être corrigé et qu'il avait demandé à son sous-ministre de faire en sorte que ces correctifs soient apportés. C'était au printemps 2000. Après cela est venu le mois de juillet. Comme je vous l'ai dit, j'ai quitté juillet, août, septembre pour une chirurgie. Je ne suis revenu qu'à la toute fin de septembre au moment où M. Trudeau est décédé, ce qui est fin septembre tout début d'octobre. Je n'ai pas assisté à la réunion qui a eu lieu avec les gens du bureau du premier ministre sur le résultat de cette vérification interne, fin septembre. Je n'y étais pas et je n'ai pas entendu parler d'autres suites, par la suite.

À (1040) 

M. Paul Crête: Vous n'avez pas réentendu parler de cette vérification d'aucune façon après septembre 2000.

M. Jean Pelletier: Par la suite.

Pour ma part, il me semble--il faudrait vérifier--que le sous-ministre des Travaux publics était venu témoigner devant le comité pour faire part de cette vérification interne et des suites qui avaient été données administrativement au ministère des Travaux publics. Alors à partir de là, pour moi le problème se réglait de façon, je dirais, administrative. 

M. Paul Crête: À quelle date le premier ministre a-t-il entendu parler la première fois de cette situation-là?

Le président: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Crête. Votre dernière question...



[English]

Your time has expired. We've gone to 8 minutes and 35 seconds.

Now, Mr. LeBlanc, s'il vous plaît.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Français]

Bonjour, monsieur Pelletier. Merci d'être avec nous ce matin. 

Tout d'abord j'aimerais saluer votre longue et distinguée carrière au service des Canadiens. J'ai eu moi-même le privilège de travailler avec vous pendant trois ans et j'ai vu personnellement votre intégrité, votre jugement et votre service. C'est important que les gens comprennent comment votre carrière vous a mené au poste de directeur du premier ministre.

[English]

M. Pelletier, a lot of people in the public and at this committee table have alleged all kinds of political involvement, for example, in the birth of the sponsorship program and the conditions that gave rise to the decision of the government to establish this program.

I think it would be useful, because of the functions you occupied before the referendum, during the referendum period, and after the referendum, if you were to give us a sense of the context in which the federal government was operating following the referendum of 1995, the political context that would have given rise to a decision of the government to establish this program.

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: On se souvient que les résultats du référendum québécois de 1995 avaient été pour le moins assez serrés. Le reste du Canada--j'exclus le Québec--n'avait pas été tendre à l'égard du gouvernement, il avait exprimé, de façon très claire et avec une certaine colère, que le gouvernement avait failli perdre le pays. Je me souviens que deux ou trois jours après les résultats du référendum, le premier ministre est allé prononcer un discours à Toronto. Je me souviens de cette salle supposément partisane, mais qui était particulièrement froide et le premier ministre avait terminé son discours en disant : 

[English]

“Take my word, and take my word. I won't let Canada down.”

[Français]

À partir de ce moment, nous qui étions avec le premier ministre, on a compris qu'il se ferait des choses. Évidemment, la mémoire oublie facilement et les gens ont oublié qu'à ce moment-là, ils ont eu peur de perdre leur pays et qu'ils n'auraient pas permis que leur gouvernement reste les bras croisés en attendant le troisième référendum et c'est pour cela qu'il y a eu par la suite toutes sortes de mesures prises par le gouvernement de M. Chrétien, pour rehausser le profil du Canada et du gouvernement canadien au Québec et pour faire en sorte que l'appartenance au Canada soit mieux reçue par les Québécois. Cela a culminé, je dirais, avec la Loi sur la clarté, mais il y a eu toutes sortes d'autres mesures.

Imaginez-vous quelle aurait été la réaction des Canadiens s'il avait fallu qu'on ne fasse rien et qu'à un troisième référendum le pays se sépare en deux. Nous aurions été pointés du doigt par tout le monde. Alors, je pense que le premier ministre a eu parfaitement raison de prendre toutes sortes d'initiatives, dont celles des commandites. Maintenant, ce qui en cause dans le rapport de la vérificatrice générale, monsieur le député, je ne pense pas que cela soit la légitimité du programme, je ne pense pas que cela soit le contact entre les politiques et les administrateurs du programme, ce qui est mis en cause par la vérificatrice, et elle a raison de le faire, c'est la gestion du programme. Est-ce qu'il y a des gens qui ont profité de ce programme-là pour faire des choses illégales, faire des choses qui sont en fraude? C'est l'objet de la vindicte publique actuelle et là-dessus, on est absolument solidaire. 

Ce n'est par parce qu'il y a des gens qui auraient peut-être mal agi, que tout le monde a mal agi et il faut éviter qu'on fasse des coupables par association. Ce n'est pas parce qu'on a rencontré quelqu'un, à un moment donné, à un endroit, qui trois ans après est poursuivi, qu'automatiquement on est coupable soi-même. Là-dessus, il y a beaucoup de débordements possibles, à la fois dans le monde politique et dans le monde des médias. 

Je suis ici pour dire exactement ce qui s'est passé. Je n'ai rien à cacher et je ne suis pas venu ici pour protéger personne. Je suis venu pour dire qu'est-ce qui a été fait et par qui cela a été fait. Je considère que je témoigne ce matin, monsieur le président, de la même façon que j'ai été assermenté.

À (1045) 

M. Dominic LeBlanc: Merci, monsieur Pelletier.

Quand vous avez parlé de débordements, je crois que vous avez absolument raison. Les débordements ont existé dans cette discussion et ce à plusieurs niveaux et de plusieurs façons. Un débordement qu'on entend souvent, c'est l'idée que le bureau du premier ministre, que vous-même ou quelqu'un qui a travaillé pour vous, aurait été impliqué, par exemple, dans le choix ou la décision d'utiliser une agence au lieu d'une autre agence ou dans la gestion des contrats, ou le choix de telle compagnie pour faire tel contrat. Pourriez-vous clarifier pour nous le rôle de votre bureau quant aux détails administratifs du Programme des commandites? Des questions de publicités et les relations que vous, ou des gens qui ont travaillé pour le bureau du premier ministre, avez eues en terme des détails de comment livrer un tel programme avec soit des fonctionnaires ou des agences.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que j'ai déjà répondu à cette question, mais pour que cela soit très clair, je vais me répéter. Le bureau du premier ministre n'a eu aucun rôle, ni direct, ni indirect, dans le choix des agences ou des firmes qui sont devenues des intermédiaires entre le gouvernement et les organisateurs d'évènements subventionnés. Sur la sélection des intermédiaires, nous n'avons eu rien à faire. Sur l'attribution des contrats, à qui ou à qui, nous n'avons eu rien à faire. Sur la fixation des honoraires ou des honoraires de production ou des simples honoraires de quelque nature que cela soit, le bureau du premier ministre n'a rien eu affaire là-dedans. Nous n'avons été, en aucune façon, au bureau du premier ministre, impliqués dans la gestion administrative du programme. Je veux mettre cela de façon très claire.

[English]

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. MacKay, please. We're now into the third round, so we're now down to four minutes per intervention. 

Mr. MacKay. 

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pelletier, you were a key player with Mr. Chrétien going back to 1991, and his chief of staff, you told us, from 1997 on to 2000. Surely your presence here today indicates that had a real--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: From 1993 to 2001.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Right. And you would be here today clearly to want to help us to get to the bottom of what was going on during a period in which you were a major player in the Chrétien administration. You've told us about efforts that were made to raise the profile of Canada in Quebec specifically, which was initially part of the so-called unity fund, which gave rise to the sponsorship program. In questioning from my colleague, Mr. Toews, you said that after 1997, in particular, cabinet and ministers would have known about the efforts that were being made through the sponsorship program to raise the profile of Canada in Quebec. Is that correct? Cabinet would have known about this plan. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't think I said that, sir.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, I'm asking you to clarify that if you would.

À (1050) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't think I said that. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, I'm asking you to clarify, sir. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think that the polls that were from time to time made public indicated that the sovereignist movement was losing ground and that the federalist perspective was gaining ground.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So spending more money in Quebec you thought would continue that trend, sir?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, it was not only one program that did the results. I think it is the combination of many things-- 

Mr. Peter MacKay: I see. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: --including the clarity bill at the end. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm asking you about the sponsorship program specifically, sir. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: You don't live in Quebec. If you had lived in Quebec, you would have seen the Quebec separatist government using Quebec Hydro, for instance, using Lotto Quebec, for instance, to back their political option.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So sponsorship was an effort to counteract--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: It was an effort to counteract and to balance, I should say in the minds of Quebeckers, both the federalist Canadian approach and the sovereignist approach. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: But my question is about the sponsorship program. My question was, did cabinet know specifically what was going on in this program? And I want to ask you about an ad hoc committee of cabinet on government communications of which there were such infamous members as Mr. Gagliano, other cabinet members like Mr. Goodale, Ms. Copps, Ms. McLellan, you were aware of this ad hoc cabinet committee on communications, sir, as chief of staff you would have to know about that. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I was aware of the existence of the committee, but I never attended any of its meetings.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And what was the purpose then, the mandate of that committee, to your knowledge?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: To overhaul the communication strategy of the government. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: So would that committee then have anything to do with passing on instructions to public works?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, ask the ones who were sitting at the committee.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I see. You wouldn't know that. As chief of staff to the Prime Minister, you wouldn't know that. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sorry, I don't know that at all. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: Of course.

Now, you mention polling. Polling was one of the areas that the Auditor General pointed out. There was in fact real concern over polls that were being done and paid for by the taxpayers, partisan polls done by the Liberal government. Are you aware of any polling that was ever done and paid for by taxpayers? 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. There was some polling I think directed by the federal-provincial department to know the status of federalism against separatism.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you read the Auditor General's report, Mr. Pelletier, before coming here?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, in general terms I read that. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: Chapter 5 of that report, this most recent report, specifically talks about polling being done and the Prime Minister's Office may have called upon the services of public works to do that polling. Are you familiar with that? Do you know anything about that? 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Honestly, sir, I don't recall. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: You honestly don't recall anything to do with polling. 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I know that we were investing in polling, you know, but there were a lot of polling done by the media as well, which were helpful. 

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not concerned about the media. I'm concerned about polling directed by the PMO. 

The Chair: I'm going to have to bring this to a close. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mills, please, four minutes. 

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin my remarks by quoting you, Mr. Chair. You stated earlier today that we are a committee of accountability. 

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I split that accountability into two facets. 

Number one, the value for taxpayers' money. I'm happy that we now have identified the nine agencies who have received the $100 million that Mr. Toews refers to on a constant basis. Their CFOs will be forthwith presented to us, the value for the money that they billed us as a government.

The second policy objective, Mr. Chair, on accountability has to deal with passing the test of how we save this country, and the legitimacy of that program in passing that test.

Now, Mr. Pelletier cannot comment because it's a machinery of government exercise on how the money was processed, but I would like you to discuss, Mr. Pelletier, a little bit more building on Dominic's or Mr. Leblanc's question, because I'm from Toronto, English Canada, on whether or not you believed or how you measured the results of this program in saving Canada.

À (1055) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Well, how we measured it, I think that the 2000 election results in Quebec were a kind of way to know if the federalist option was stronger than before.

I remember being a candidate in 1993. We were washed out by the Bloc in 1993, if you'll remember. It started to slip in 1997. It slipped again in 2000. So we thought that we had done something right if that result was possible.

This is one of the moments where we measured the overall result of our overall program on unity.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.

No further questions.

The Chair: No further questions.

Mr. Jordan, please, four minutes.

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pelletier, I'm struck by this sort of focus that some of the members have on your lack of an opening statement. I hearken back to the reference that it should be on the subject of the inquiry. I guess I'm a little bit sympathetic to the fact that if I had to make an opening statement on the subjects of this inquiry, I might have trouble doing it because we seem to have a very broad brush, here.

Going down to the specific concerns in the Auditor General's report. You've touched on some of this, but I just want to get this on the record. Prior to the Auditor General's statements concerning the management of this file, the communications activities of the government, prior to that, were you ever personally aware or were you made aware of any ad agencies that may have been potentially billing for work they didn't do?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Hon. Joe Jordan: At any time prior to the Auditor General's analysis of the operation of this department, were you personally aware or were you made aware of any activities by the communications function within the federal government that would have been, or processes they followed that would have been inconsistent with the operation or the implementation of the Finance Administration Act?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not directly. The only information I got was the result of the internal audit of 1999-2000.

Hon. Joe Jordan: I want to pick up a little bit on the point that Mr. Mills made and you tried to expand on, because I'm an MP who isn't from Quebec as well. 

One of the things people who I talk to are kind of struggling with is, what could we possibly hope to have accomplished by spending a lot of money to put the Canadian word mark out on a ball field fence? I guess part of this is I was struck by the story in the Globe last week that Parizeau seems to have had a fund of about $17 billion--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: You see, I think that the biggest movement, with some success, used the pride of being Québecois. You know, we're Québecois, and we're proud to be. But to counteract proud, we're Canadians, and we're proud to be Canadians. This was never said. We thought that we had to, I should say, nourish, the feelings about Canada a bit more by a higher presence of Canada that you see. It's like the battle of Coke and Pepsi. If, suddenly, Coke decides not to put its name everywhere, and Pepsi is everywhere, everybody will go to Pepsi. It's as simple as that with mass media information. It was not only that, because it would have been a little smaller, but we thought that the profile of Canada had to be more visible. The Péquiste government was using, as much as they could, and I'm not blaming it for having done so, we were using Hydro-Québec to sponsor that, and it was always the Quebec flag here, and the Québecois, etc., and we weren't there. People say, what's Canada doing for us. Are they there? They're absent. I don't think that was healthy for Canadian unity.

Á (1100) 

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Kenny, please, four minutes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I would like to go back to my original question, because I don't actually think I have received an answer to it. It is; were you aware of a directive from the federal-provincial relations office at PCO, to Chuck Guité, in 1995, ``to bend the rules in order to execute the sponsorship program'' at that time?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, you also testified that, while you may have intervened in several instances with Mr. Guité to propose the authorization and funding of certain sponsorship projects, that 

[Français]

Nous n'avons pas fait les décisions.

[English]

you didn't make the decision that it was up to Mr. Guité to make the decision. Is that what you have said?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Clearly.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, I mean, don't you think that's just a little difficult for us to buy. You were known as the most powerful man in the government. Many people said that you were the most powerful chief of staff, ever, in one of the most centralized Prime Minister's offices. Your word was virtually writ in this town with government officials.

Do you expect us to believe that when a relatively junior manager and the civil servant has a discussion with the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, who indicates his will in a particular way, that a particular program be funded, do you expect us to believe that this really allowed the bureaucrat to say, ah, no, Mr. Pelletier, I think in fact I'll turn you down on this one?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Je vais vous répondre en français, si vous me permettez, pour être bien à l'aise avec les mots que je vais employer.

J'ai toujours fait attention, dans l'exercice de mes fonctions de directeur de cabinet, de respecter les fonctionnaires dans la limite de leurs responsabilités. J'ai indiqué, au tout début, que le premier ministre avait bien dit que les aspects administratifs et législatifs étaient ceux de la fonction publique et que les aspects politiques étaient les nôtres dans les cabinets ministériels, y compris le PMO, et j'ai toujours fait bien attention de prendre les décisions définitives dans le secteur qui était le mien et de laisser les fonctionnaires prendre les décisions qui étaient les leurs. Demandez à n'importe quel sous-ministre, pendant les sept ans et demi que j'ai été directeur de cabinet, si je n'ai jamais donné d'instructions à un sous-ministre. Jamais, parce que je respectais sa fonction.

Maintenant, on n'est pas responsable de l'influence que notre poste nous donne. On n'est pas responsable de cela. Maintenant, si des fonctionnaires sont plus influencés par le témoignage d'une personne que par une autre, qu'il en soit ainsi.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: You will admit, then, sir, that when the chief of staff, when you communicated with a civil servant, that this would carry pretty significant weight, would you not say? Were you aware of a single instance where Mr. Guité came back to you and said, no, Mr. Pelletier, I've decided not to finance the project you are lobbying for? 

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, je pense que je faisais ma fonction, en tout respect de la sienne, et je pense qu'il respectait l'exercice de ma fonction comme je respectais la sienne. Maintenant, qui était plus influencé par les témoignages de l'un que de l'autre, monsieur? Vous lui demanderez.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Sir, how was it your function to intervene with a relatively junior bureaucrat? Madame Diane Marleau testified that when she became minister, Chuck Guité arrived at her office, and said, I report to you directly. She said, no, you don't. Get back to your office and report to the deputy minister. Mr. Gagliano testified that he only met with Mr. Guité two or three times a year. Now, you're telling us you met more frequently with Mr. Guité than his deputy minister, than his minister, you had a direct working relationship with him, as the most powerful man in the government, next to the Prime Minister. Do you expect us to believe this was just business as usual, and that there was no political interference when you talked to him on behalf of the Prime Minister?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur, j'ai bien indiqué que nous avons fait les représentations que nous jugions utiles et dans notre devoir de faire au sujet des dossiers que nous relayions à la direction administrative du programme. J'ai indiqué que la décision finale de subventionner ou de commanditer un événement et non pas un autre, c'était celle de la direction du programme. Nous ne prenions pas cette décision définitive et j'ai indiqué que la livraison de la décision appartenait entièrement aux fonctionnaires et pas au bureau du premier ministre. Je pense que, là-dessus, j'ai été très clair, j'ai répété cela plusieurs fois depuis le début. Que vous aimiez l'histoire ou que vous ne l'aimiez pas, je suis venu vous dire ma vérité à moi, pas celle peut-être que vous voudriez entendre. Je suis bien désolé, mais je vous dis exactement ce qui était la vérité.

Á (1105) 

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kenney.

Monsieur Thibault, s'il vous plaît, quatre minutes.

[Français]

L'hon. Robert Thibault: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Pelletier. Merci d'être venu faire cette présentation et répondre à nos questions.

[English]

It's important for us to find out, I think, at this committee, for all Canadians and for their government in the future, how this system failed and how we can prevent it in the future. If there were abuses, at what level were the abuses, how many were there, and how do we make sure that it never happens?

One of the important elements there is the question of ministerial responsibility. We've examined this with various witnesses, and you certainly were in a position to understand this very well. It's a question where, in a country with a modern democracy like Canada, we depend very much on ministerial responsibility and a professional civil service, a professional bureaucracy. As you mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister had been clear that the administrative and legislative aspects and the political side are to be done by ministers.

I would like you to give me your understanding on this. I think it's too early for us to say that there was or was not political interference or political responsibility, or that there was no administrative responsibility. We need to know all the facts.

In your words, could you please define for us what you see as the ministerial responsibility, and what you see as the role of the administrative side of the bureaucracy in a question such as these sponsorship questions?

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, je pense que les ministres et le conseil des ministres décide des programmes, de l'orientation des programmes. Je pense que les ministres donnent les directions générales sur l'orientation du programme et je pense qu'après cela, c'est aux fonctionnaires à gérer le programme. C'est aussi simple que cela.

L'hon. Robert Thibault: Donc, les ministres n'auraient pas ou ne devraient pas faire partie des décisions opérationnelles tant qu'à ce qui va être la valeur acceptée d'un contrat ou l'émission des contrats ou de ces questions.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne suis pas un spécialiste de la machinerie gouvernementale, mais je pense que j'ai connu une fonction publique à Ottawa qui était excessivement puissante, qui était excessivement jalouse de ses pouvoirs et qui veut continuer à conserver, je dirais, l'entier contrôle sur l'administration des programmes de dépenses du gouvernement. 

L'hon. Robert Thibault: où on a rencontré, où on utilise souvent les noms d'administrateurs que vous apportez de là, tels M. Guité et M. Quail. C'était des administrateurs professionnels. Quand est-ce que vous avez connu ces gens-là premièrement?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai pas rencontré M. Quail souvent, parce que je n'avais pas affaire normalement aux sous-ministres. J'ai rencontré M. Quail peut-être à quelques reprises. Mais, M. Guité, j'ai connu M. Guité, je ne sais pas, en 1996. Il faudrait que je regarde dans mes agendas. Mais je ne me souviens pas d'avoir beaucoup rencontré M. Guité avant la fin du référendum québécois.

L'hon. Robert Thibault: M. Tremblay. Vous avez fait référence à une question plus tôt à M. Tremblay, avec qui vous étiez en contact de temps à autre. Est-ce que ces contacts-là auraient été près de 2000 ou post-2000 ou avant que ce nouveau plan de 37 items soit implanté?

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, j'ai eu deux périodes de contact avec M. Tremblay, quand M. Tremblay était le executive assistant d'un ministre. J'ai eu des contacts à ce moment-là. Après cela, il a été, je pense, dans une période de trois mois complètement sorti, parce qu'il devait devenir fonctionnaire, etc. J'ai eu des premiers contacts à ce titre-là au moment du départ de M. Guité pour la retraite et au moment où M. Tremblay a assumé les fonctions. Alors, c'est quoi? C'est l'été 1999, probablement, si ma mémoire est fidèle, au moment où M. Guité a pris sa retraite.

L'hon. Robert Thibault: Merci, monsieur Pelletier.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Lastewka and Mr. Tonks have indicated that they will have two minutes each, rather than a four-minute intervention by one, and that would complete round one. 

We will then have a health break for a few minutes and then we will come back and start over again for another round.

Mr. Lastewka, you have something to say.

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): The four minutes will be with Mr. Tonks.

The Chair: Oh, so it's four minutes with Mr. Tonks. All right, Mr. Tonks, then we'll have a five-minute recess.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you also for the long service that you've given. I can say that after 30 years of being in the municipal area, and I've known the deputant## during those times. You've served Canada well. 

My question, have you read the transcript of Mr. Guité?Á (1110) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, rapidly yesterday afternoon because I couldn't get it on Friday, so I got it rapidly yesterday.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I'd like to ask some questions with respect to your opinion as to the context and validity of the points that are put forward by Mr. Guité. For example, he was asked a question by Mr. Mayfield and the question was,

Could you describe the nature of the advice that you were given, Mr. Guité. The Auditor General has said that she can find no record of advice...


and so on and so forth. 

Mr. Guité said,

I pointed out, I have to be careful here... 


he said,

...and to follow a bit of the guidelines that exist in the rules, but I may have to, for a better term, bend them a little. Because, as you can understand, we're basically at war trying to save the country, we and the FPRO invited approximately ten firms, which is documented. There's a scope of work to present to us and, as a committee, the FPRO what they could do to help us win the referendum in Quebec, which they did. Based on that, we retained five firms.


The Federal-Provincial Relations Office was a construct that you were aware of? You knew of the existence of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, but it was not in the PMO. I knew the existence of it, but it was in the PCO, not the PMO.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Right, okay. 

Mr. Mayfield goes on to ask a question:

I'm wondering, who was the liaison between you and the minister's office and the Prime Minister's Office to keep track of the whole program? What was going on? Can you tell us? Who is involved with you in making the decisions about perhaps slightly bending the rules and coordinating it, and which to accept and which to reject?


Mr. Guité said:

That was my decision.


In other words, he was meeting with the Federal-Provincial Relations Office, which was a construct dealing with federal-provincial issues. He had discussed this whole issue with respect to decisions, strategic decisions. He said, “We even met as a committee”, and he is taking responsibility with respect to the kinds of decisions, based on his background in the firms that could carry the message.

Do you accept Mr. Guité at face value that he made those kinds of decisions as administrative and management decisions?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, it's for him to speak for himself, but there's two things that I can tell you. First, I personally was not aware of his dealings with the FPRO, you say?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Right.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Secondly, the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, was never involved in any suggestions that any rules should be bent in any way. I remember all the funds that were taken out of the unity file to go any place and it always stipulated that it should be in accordance with the Financial Administration Act and the rules of Treasury Board, every time it was mentioned.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tonks.

We're going to have a five-minute recess and when we return we'll start the rotation all over again with the interventions being eight minutes long.

We are suspended for five minutes.



Á 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Á (1125) 

The Chair: 

Okay. We're ready. We have now resumed. We're now on to round two so it'll be a repeat of what we did before, with the first two rounds of eight minutes each, the first two rounds of parties eight minutes each. Mr. MacKay, eight minutes, please.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Pelletier, in earlier testimony, I believe from one of the Liberal questioners, you said that you knew some of the individuals who were the heads of various communication firms--individuals like Claude Bulé, Jean Breault, and Jean Lafleur. I want to ask you specifically about your relationship with Mr. Lafleur.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: 

The Chair: We have a problem with the interpretation, the microphones. We'll try to get that fixed over lunch. Mr. Pelletier, please.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know Mr. Breault.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Mr. Lafleur, I want to ask you specifically about Mr. Lafleur.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I have met, socially, once, Mr. Bulé, but not more than that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Lafleur you know well and I would suggest that you...in fact, during the time in which you were in the PMO, Mr. Lafleur and his company, that was later sold to Groupaction, actually received virtually every communications contract during the time you were at the PMO and then that continued after you went to VIA Rail. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You don't know?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sorry, I don't know.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You have no idea what communication spending was going on at VIA Rail?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: When I arrived at VIA Rail, he had the contract as the ad agency, the contact had been approved previously by the board before I was there, so...

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you had no input. You never discussed communications while at the PMO or at VIA Rail with Mr. Lafleur? At no time?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. I knew Mr. Lafleur socially like that. He has a son who I know well and he was very concerned about his son at a certain time and we discussed that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So when you said that you didn't know him professionally--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I didn't discuss any contract with Mr. Lafleur.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You never discussed it. When you said you knew him, you didn't know him professionally, you knew him unprofessionally. Is that what you meant? Unprofessionally, okay.

When you said, at one point in your testimony previous, that you would talk to the janitor if it would help the country, would you talk to the janitor if you thought he was bilking the government of $100 million? Would you talk to him then? Probably, eh?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: When I said that I would see the janitor, I said, sir, it's not because you're the prime minister's chief of staff that you will forbid from seeing anybody who can have a positive role in the unity file. I answered that answer when I was asked if it was not particular for me to be in contact with a low ranking officials...middle officials...you know, first, I don't think it was too middle, but I would have seen anybody who would have had an important role in the unity file, including a janitor.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But you wouldn't involve yourself with anybody that had hands on, decision making power over where these contracts for communications were going. You had no communications with those individuals?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I explained very clearly that...

Mr. Peter MacKay: Maybe you could walk us through it again, because we're not all as sharp as you, Mr. Pelletier.

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, please.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: What was your question again?

Mr. Peter MacKay: My question is, you had no contact with individuals that had hands on, decision making power over the awarding of sponsorship contracts. You had no contact with those people?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I said that the PMO was doing his job. We had to see that the program was delivered the way the cabinet had approved the program. We would serve Canadians in their needs when they would ask us to file demands for the program, the financial assistance of a program. We did that, but we didn't get into the administration,

[Français]

la gestion interne du programme, ni dans le choix des intermédiaires, ni à qui les contrats doivent être donnés, ni les conditions du contrat, ni le paiement. On n'est pas intervenu là-dedans du tout.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: What about the direction, the political direction, which are the words that we're continually reminded of, that came from the current prime minister, Mr. Martin. No political direction you ever witnessed, or had a part of, in your capacity as the prime minister's chief of staff?

Á (1130) 

[Français]

M. Jean Pelletier: Nous n'avons pas donné, jamais, de directions politiques sur la gestion du programme. On n'a jamais donné de directions politiques de favoriser telle firme ou de favoriser telle autre firme ou de donner tel contrat à telle firme plutôt qu'à une autre.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: 

What about in hiring practices, Mr. Pelletier? Did you ever have any input into hiring practices?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There's a suggestion made by François Beaudoin. You're familiar with Mr. Beaudoin, he was the head of the BDC, who suffered a similar fate to yourself where he was fired by the government, correct?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Beaudoin was not fired by the government, sir.

Mr. Peter MacKay: He was not fired by the government?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No? He took a voluntary leave?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think that what happened is that he decided to leave the bank and it was a negotiation of an outgoing contract that he had.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I see. Well, there's a suggestion, in any event--and we can disagree on the circumstances which led to his contract and we will--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: We will, on that fact which is not pertinent to the committee. I am sure we will disagree.

Mr. Peter MacKay: None whatsoever. But my question to you, sir, was did you ever have anything to do with the hiring practices? And this goes, I would suggest, to credibility. There's a suggestion that you met with Mr. Beaudoin and a number of others, including Jean Lafleur--who you had an unprofessional personal relationship with, according to you--

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, I wouldn't call it unprofessional. Is it unprofessional? Were those his words?

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's what he said. Those were his words.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And there was a discussion at a box in Montreal, at the Molson Centre--this was the VIA Rail box, as I understand it--do you recall that meeting? There was a box at a hockey game-- 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I know that Mr. Beaudoin said that he had gone to hockey with me and that at that hockey game I gave him the name of a search firm so that he could facilitate the entry in the bank staff of Jean Carle.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Correct.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I deny that I ever went. I may have been in the same box of hockey or in the Bell Centre in Montreal where Mr. Beaudoin was, but we never went to hockey together. I deny that I have given him any name of any search firm and I deny that the PMO was ever involved in the hiring of Mr. Carle at the bank. I say very, very strictly that Mr. Beaudoin hired, himself, independently of anybody, Mr. Carle and that the PMO and Mr. Chrétien himself were never involved in that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Any discussion at that time, Mr. Pelletier--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: And you give me the occasion to say so and I'm very happy. I thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm glad you wanted to clear that up.

Now, did you have any discussions with Jean Lafleur at that time, at the box, at the Molson Centre, at the hockey game, when Mr. Beaudoin was present about activities in VIA Rail vis-à-vis the work being done by Lafleur Communications? Did you have any discussions at that time?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: In VIA Rail, never.

Mr. Peter MacKay: None whatsoever.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And you had no discussions whatsoever about the hiring of Mr. Carle?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: None at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And no discussions about the BDC entering into an arrangement to also contribute financially to the cost of the box?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: None at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You had no discussions along those lines?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: None at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

Monsieur Crête, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.

[Français]

M. Paul Crête: Merci, monsieur le président.

Monsieur Pelletier, vous nous avez parlé, dans la première partie du témoignage, que vous aviez touché à environ 25 dossiers. Lesquels à part Grand Prix et Saint-Hyacinthe? Est-ce que vous pourriez nous les nommer ou nous faire parvenir une liste?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je ne vais pas vous faire parvenir une liste parce que je n'ai pas de notes là-dessus, monsieur le député. J'ai dit 25, mais j'aurais pu dire 23 ou 30. 

M. Paul Crête: Vous nous avez parlé aussi que vous aviez eu des rencontres avec M. Guité qui venait à votre bureau, je crois. Est-ce que M. Gagliano était là lorsque vous rencontriez M. Guité, à cette occasion-là ou à d'autres occasions?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que M. Gagliano a été présent une ou deux fois au moment où s'est fait la transition d'administration entre le régime Guité et le régime Tremblay, mais pas les autres fois, sûrement.

M. Paul Crête: Pour les autres fois, combien de fois avez-vous rencontré M. Guité seul ou sans M. Gagliano? 

Á (1135) 

M. Jean Pelletier: De mémoire, j'ai dit que je l'avais rencontré à peu près à tous les deux mois. 

M. Paul Crête: Sur une période...à tous les deux mois?

M. Jean Pelletier: Le calcul, je ne l'ai pas fait.

M. Paul Crête: Sur une période de plusieurs années?

M. Jean Pelletier: Ah, 1996, 1997, 1998 probablement. Après il a pris sa retraite.

M. Paul Crête: Aviez-vous le même type de rencontre avec M. Tremblay ensuite. Je ne me souviens pas si vous nous l'aviez précisé.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne me souviens pas trop. Tremblay c'était plus au téléphone: où est rendu tel dossier, telle fiche, dealing normal, mais toujours dans les limites de ce que je vous ai dit qui était notre rôle. 

M. Paul Crête: OK. Justement, dans les limites de votre rôle vous nous avez parlé de rumeurs en 2000, concernant le programme des commandites, qui vous avaient amené à aller poser des questions. Qu'est-ce qui vous inquiétait? Qu'est-ce que vous aviez entendu dans ces rumeurs qui vous inquiétait?

M. Jean Pelletier: Ce qui nous inquiétait... 

Quand quelqu'un a une faveur, l'autre qui voulait l'avoir est jaloux. Quand il y a un petit groupe qui a tous les contrats, les autres s'énervent et ne sont pas contents. Il y avait toutes sortes de rumeurs, qu'il n'y avait pas assez d'intermédiaires choisis, que tout allait aux mêmes et qu'il y avait peut-être des arrangements qui n'étaient pas corrects. Enfin, quand la rumeur part, ça part. Un moment donné c'est devenu... tout le monde parlait de ça. Alors nous de dire, «écoute donc, allons au fond des choses et on va regarder ce qui se passe.» C'est à ce moment-là, comme je vous l'ai dit, que j'ai fait rapport de cela à M. Chrétien qui m'a dit: «Vois le ministre». Le ministre m'a dit: «Eh bien, j'ai une vérification qui est en cours et on va attendre les résultats». On les a eus. Je vous ai dit ce qu'il avait fait des résultats.

M. Paul Crête: Quand vous dites «un petit groupe» qui avait «tous les contrats», c'est de cela dont on se plaignait. C'est qui ce «petit groupe» duquel on se plaignait et c'est qui les gens qui se plaignaient de cela?

M. Jean Pelletier: Tout le monde. La rumeur de la rue, quand un moment donné on entend toujours la même rumeur et que tout le monde en parle et en parle, tu te dis: est-ce qu'il y a quelque chose de vrai là-dedans. Alors tu va au fond des choses. 

M. Paul Crête: Cela veut dire que vous avez eu la curiosité de demander au ministre qu'il en parle au premier ministre qui vous a référé au ministre pour savoir ce qu'il y avait en dessous de cela. Il vous a dit qu'il avait commencé une enquête. Lorsque la vérification interne a donné les résultats, vous n'aviez pas eu cette même curiosité d'aller les voir les résultats parce que vous m'avez dit qu'à l'automne ensuite, après votre retour, après votre maladie...

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, monsieur. Ce que je vous ai dit--vous en avez oublié un bout--c'est que quand la vérification interne eût été terminée, le ministre m'a dit qu'il en avait reçu les résultats, qu'il n'y avait rien de criminel, qu'il y avait des problèmes administratifs et de gestion et qu'il y avait un plan de correctifs—il me semble que c'est en 36, 37 ou 38 items—et qu'il avait demandé à son sous-ministre de mettre en plan, à l'exécution, ses suggestions, qu'entretemps les activités du programme seraient suspendues. Cela s'est passé—je ne sais trop—fin mai ou juin 2000. Je suis parti après au début du mois de juillet. Alors j'ai fait rapport, au moment où il m'avait dit les résultats de la vérification, au premier ministre et celui-ci m'a dit: «Le ministre a fait ce qu'il devait faire. Il a fait faire une vérification, il a eu les résultats et il a demandé au sous-ministre de mettre en application les recommandations».

M. Paul Crête: OK. Après en octobre ou novembre, vous n'êtes jamais revenu à la charge pour savoir quels étaient les résultats.

M. Jean Pelletier: Quand je suis revenu au début d'octobre, d'abord je relevais d'une importante chirurgie qui m'avait pas mal mis à terre sur le plan physique. Il y a eu les funérailles de M. Trudeau, après cela il me semble qu'il y a eu un certain scrutin en novembre 2000. Je pense que je suis plutôt retombé sur ce dossier.

M. Paul Crête: C'est entre le début octobre et le 30 novembre justement qu'il m'intéressait de savoir si vous aviez eu comme préoccupation de revoir cette réalité avant l'élection.

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je suis désolé. Je pense qu'il ne m'appartenait pas de me préoccuper des correctifs administratifs de gestion. Je pense que cela appartient à la fonction publique.

Á (1140) 

M. Paul Crête: Vous dites à peu près ceci: que tout premier ministre devrait avoir un oeil sur l'unité nationale. Est-ce que pour vous c'est un reproche à l'égard de M. Martin qui a éliminé la réserve pour l'unité nationale?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas nécessairement. Il peut avoir d'autres moyens que cela. Je ne sais pas moi mais je dis que tout premier ministre doit avoir ce dossier à l'esprit. Cela ne se fait pas seulement au niveau fédéral, cela se fait aussi au niveau des provinces que je sache.

M. Paul Crête: De qui parlez-vous?

M. Jean Pelletier: De vos amis à Québec.

M. Paul Crête: C'est certain que, la décision d'un peuple en bout de ligne de devenir un pays, cela ne seront pas des questions financières ou de de marketing qui vont finir par régler cette question. Les peuples sont beaucoup plus intelligents que cela et conscients de leur avenir.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je vous remercie beaucoup du jugement.

M. Paul Crête: J'aimerais vous poser une question d'un autre ordre. Je veux savoir si vous connaissez un certain M. Jacques Corriveau.

M. Jean Pelletier: Oui, je connais M. Corriveau.

M. Paul Crête: Avez-vous eu des rencontres fréquentes avec ce monsieur-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non. 

M. Paul Crête: Ou votre bureau, contacté la division de M. Guité concernant les projets gérés par Polygone comme le Salon du grand air, l'Almanach du peuple, les capsules radio, par exemple, vous n'avez jamais eu de contact de ce côté-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai rien à faire là-dedans.

M. Paul Crête: D'accord. Parce qu'on sait que M. Corriveau a fait du lobby pour Polygone, c'est un ami du premier ministre, il a reçu 1 $ sur 6 $ du programme des commandites. Donc, M. Corriveau ne vous a pas contacté à votre bureau pour des projets de commandites ou de visibilité d'aucune façon?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas du tout.

M. Paul Crête: Merci.

Le président: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Crête.

Monsieur Proulx, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): 

M. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Rebonjour, monsieur Pelletier.

M. Jean Pelletier: Rebonjour, monsieur Proulx.

M. Jean Pelletier: 

M. Marcel Proulx: Monsieur Pelletier, avant d'aller trop loin, il y a un terme qui est passé au-dessus de la table tantôt entre M. McKay et vous dont j'aimerais entendre de votre part le sens que vous lui donnez, vous avez parlé de unprofessional relationship, parlez-vous d'unprofessional dans le sens d'une relation amicale?

M. Jean Pelletier: Professionnelle versus sociale.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord, parfait. Alors unprofessional c'est une question de dire que c'est à l'extérieur des cadres de votre travail. Merci. 

On a parlé brièvement dans mes premières huit minutes et j'aimerais revenir sur le choix des intermédiaires dans le programme des commandites, les fameuses compagnies de communications. Vous dites que vous n'étiez pas--et je ne questionne pas votre réponse--que vous n'étiez pas impliqué dans le choix des intermédiaires. Mais j'aimerais savoir, à votre connaissance, qui était impliqué dans le choix des intermédiaires, monsieur Pelletier?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'en sais rien, c'est la direction du programme à Travaux publics, ce n'est pas nous.

Á (1145) 

M. Marcel Proulx: Parfait. Vous avez parlé de rencontres une fois par deux mois à la demande de M. Guité, vous avez parlé de rencontres ou de discussions avec M. Tremblay, je veux juste entendre de votre part, monsieur Pelletier, j'ai cru comprendre tantôt et j'aimerais que vous me confirmiez, que ces rencontres-là étaient pour traiter de dossiers qui étaient importants au niveau du Cabinet du premier ministre dans le sens que des représentations vous avaient été faites ou avaient été faites au Cabinet du premier ministre. Ai-je bien compris ou si je dois comprendre autre chose? D'abord, M. Guité allait vous rencontrer à votre bureau, je présume, ou au téléphone, y avait-il quelqu'un d'autre présent avec M. Guité et vous, monsieur Pelletier?

M. Jean Pelletier: Ah, il y a peut-être eu Jean Carle à quelques reprises.

M. Marcel Proulx: Est-ce qu'il y aurait eu quelqu'un...?

M. Jean Pelletier: Mais ces réunions-là avaient, dans le fond, pour menu à la fois les dossiers que nous avions soumis, nous, qui avaient passé par notre bureau, pour savoir où ils étaient rendus et, deuxièmement, cela servait aussi, je dirais, de sounding board pour M. Guité et, j'imagine, son équipe, puisqu'il arrivait avec des questions, à nous demander si, je ne sais pas quoi, telle activité qui se passait dans le comté de Pontiac ou telle activité qui allait se passer dans Matapédia si c'était quelque chose qu'on connaissait, quelle importance cela avait, etc. Parce que, vous savez, j'imagine que quand on fait établir une liste de toute une série d'activités qui demandent à être commanditées, la personne qui regarde ça n'a pas une connaissance absolument personnelle de chacun des dossiers pour être capable de dire « cela est une priorité 1 et cela est une priorité 3 et une priorité 4 », il faut que ces gens-là s'informent. Alors M. Guité s'informait et son personnel s'informait et ils nous consultaient sur, à la fois, les dossiers qui n'avaient peut-être pas transigé par le bureau du premier ministre et qui étaient soumis pour demande de commandites et à la fois les dossiers qui avaient transigé par nous.

M. Marcel Proulx: Puis-je déduire, par cette réponse, monsieur Pelletier, que vous aviez l'opportunité d'examiner de façon systématique la liste des projets qui étaient examinés par M. Guité ou son équipe à savoir s'ils devaient recevoir une commandite ou non?

M. Jean Pelletier: Écoutez, j'ai vu des listes. Est-ce que j'ai vu toutes les listes? Je ne sais.

M. Marcel Proulx: Il faudrait demander à M. Guité. 

Dans ses rencontres-là, monsieur Pelletier, où vous avez vu des listes, où M. Guité vous a consulté, où vous avez consulté M. Guité à savoir si des projets du cabinet du premier ministre ou des projets comme celui dont vous parliez tout à l'heure, de M. Loubier pour Saint-Hyacinthe, vous vous informiez, vous alliez aux informations. On a commencé à en parler et on a changé de sujet, mais qui de façon régulière pouvait participer à cette rencontre avec vous et M. Guité? Est-ce qu'il y avait quelqu'un du bureau du ministre des Travaux publics à l'époque?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je ne me souviens pas. Il y avait Guité des Travaux publics.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord, mais du bureau politique de M. Gagliano ou de Mme Marleau à votre connaissance?

M. Jean Pelletier: De Mme Marleau, non. Du temps de M. Gagliano, est-ce qu'il y a pu y avoir Jean-Marc Bard? Peut-être une fois ou deux.

M. Marcel Proulx: Au début de cette période, le chef de cabinet de M. Gagliano, si ma mémoire est bonne, était M. Tremblay. M. Tremblay aurait peut-être pu participer avec vous et M. Guité. Par la suite, quand ça été M. Tremblay qui est devenu le directeur exécutif, le chef de cabinet de M. Gagliano, comme vous vous souvenez, c'était M. Jean-Marc Bard. Est-ce que M. Bard participait à des rencontres avec vous et M. Tremblay?

M. Jean Pelletier: Peut-être une ou deux fois mais il faudrait que je revois mes agendas pour vous répondre de façon précise.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord. On a commencé à se parler tout à l'heure, monsieur Pelletier, je n'ose pas appeler cela vos relations, mais de vos connaissances dans les agences de publicité. Vous m'avez dit que vous ne connaissiez pas un tel ou un tel, que vous n'aviez pas eu de discussion d'affaire comme telle au niveau des commandites. Est-ce que vous avez eu des discussions avec des employés des compagnies d'agences? Pas nécessairement les principales, je pense à M. Alain Renaud, par exemple, qui a été dans...

M. Jean Pelletier: Encore moins.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord. Je voulais mettre cela au point.

M. Guité nous a dit,--vous en avez entendu parler aussi et vous avez regardé, vous nous avez dit que vous avez consulté le témoignage de M. Guité--,M. Guité fait référence à une période de guerre. À ce moment-là il avait obtenu la permission ou des signaux à l'effet qu'il pouvait transgresser, si vous voulez, les règles d'administration publique. Pouvez-vous nous dire, selon vous, qui aurait pu être en position... ? Je dois vous rappeler qu'hier on a eu la visite de l'ancien ministre des Travaux publics à l'époque, M. Dingwall, et il a catégoriquement nié, rejeté la déclaration de M. Guité à l'effet que lui, M. Dingwall, aurait pu changer, ou aurait voulu changer ces règles du jeu. Est-ce que vous avez idée qui aurait pu donner des instructions à M. Guité pour transgresser ou plier, si on se sert d'une traduction du terme anglais, to bend the rules, avez-vous idée qui aurait pu donner ces instructions à M. Guité.

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'en ai pas la moindre idée, monsieur Proulx.

M. Marcel Proulx: Quand on a parlé tout à l'heure, par l'entremise je pense de M. MacKay, des contrats de communication qui pouvaient provenir du cabinet du premier ministre, qui aurait eu la responsabilité dans votre organigramme, monsieur Pelletier, de s'occuper de ces contrats au niveau du bureau du premier ministre?

M. Jean Pelletier: OU bien mon adjointe exécutive, ou bien M. Carle.

M. Marcel Proulx: D'accord. Une dernière brève question. Dans l'objectif, comme vous l'avez si bien déclaré tout à l'heure, de notre comité, de nos travaux, avez-vous connaissance, pouvez-vous nous faire part de ce que vous connaissez ou de ce que vous avez pu connaître au niveau d'irrégularités dans tout ce programme?

M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je regrette. J'ai appris beaucoup de choses par les journaux. La question des fameux trois rapports de Groupaction qui a parti le bal, je l'ai appris en lisant le journal. J'avais quitté à ce moment-là. C'était en février 2002, je pense, et j'avais quitté Ottawa depuis le mois de juin.

Á (1150) 

Le président: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Pelletier et monsieur Proulx. 

[English]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis please, for eight minutes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

May I begin by asking a rhetorical question? How long have you been rehearsing, Mr. Pelletier, to be so evasive in your answers to our committee?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Madame, I didn't rehearse to be evasive. I rehearsed to remember the facts and remember what happened. I told this committee that I had the firm belief that my testimony was as if I was under oath, Madame. I'm sorry if my answers don't please you, but I am here to say my truth, not the truth you'd like me to say.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

You can imagine, though, our dismay having the former Chief of Staff from the Prime Minister's Office throughout the period of time when this sponsorship scandal was unfolding, the most significant scandal in the history of this country and yet the Chief of Staff and the Prime Minister's Office don't seem to know much of anything. It's really hard to believe.

Equally, it's hard to believe that as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister's Office that you, and I quote from your earlier comments, “you weren't that aware of the machinery of government”. Equally surprising is your statement and you've said this a few times that your idea of ministerial responsibility is that ministers should be in sort of rough in tune with their departments, but would ensure that the nitty gritty was carried out by public servants. Now that's an interesting definition of ministerial responsibility.

I have to say one thing, it's been consistent. Between you and Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Dingwall we're getting a whole new political science definition of ministerial responsibility. But is that really the case? I was a minister in a provincial government and I was expected, as a minister, to know what was going on in my department and if something went wrong, I was held responsible. If something went wrong in one of the departments when you were Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office was the minister never held accountable and responsible?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Remember, I'm not a professor at university to discuss what is the system. But, you know, here in our system and it might be for a change deputy ministers and civil servants are not accountable--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Ministers are.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: --and frankly, I think that a minister who is accountable for everything cannot know and have hands on everything. I saw during the years I was in Ottawa some ministers attacked in question period about facts that they didn't know about and that finally with the Auditor General's report were far minor than exploited the way they were. 

So as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister I could not know what was going on everywhere. I tried to manage my shop and I think I managed my shop with a sense of responsibility. But I didn't try to manage other shops nor other ministers' offices nor bureaucratic offices. I'm sorry if this displeases you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fair enough, but I would have thought that as the Chief of Staff in the Prime Minister's Office it would have been your job to meet with all incoming ministers and to advise them of their responsibility and in fact to--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, Madam, it was not to the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister to do that. It was to the Clerk of the Privy Council and his staff.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The Prime Minister's Office and the Chief of Staff in that office also plays a pivotal role in terms of the machinery of government and--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, Madam, I'm sorry--

Á (1155) 

The Chair: --it's hard to actually understand your complete lack of involvement in--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sorry, Madam, I clearly said that the Office of the Prime Minister was for political aspects and administrative and legislative aspects was the deputy ministers and the bureaucracy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Precisely, so that--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: So I'm ready to answer about what was my responsibility, but unfortunately I can't answer for the responsibility of others--

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, no, I think you're required to answer what you know and not what you believe are your responsibilities.

Thank you.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: But Mr. Chairman, I must say what was the limit of my responsibility to explain the answers I will give.

The Chair: You are required to answer on what you know, not within what you consider to be the terms of reference of the job that you had as a Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: But am I to accept the blame of the member because of her interpretation of my duties?

The Chair: No, you may answer to the fact that you can either answer a question and say I have knowledge and this is what I know; I have no knowledge, I do not know; you may explain the difference between the PMO and the PCO and your responsibilities as the Chief of Staff, primarily I presume, within the PMO. We had a Clerk of the Privy Council for the CPCO, but you can't say that was not my responsibility, therefore I will not answer. You have to answer what you know.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. The witness did not say “I will not answer”. The witness was doing exactly what you just explained, which is to give an explanation of his responsibilities as chief of staff in the prime minister's office and attempt to explain the responsibilities of PCO as it pertained to the administration, the bureaucracy, the public service, etc., and then continue to explain what he knew, providing that. I think the witness was doing exactly what you just explained so I would suggest that perhaps you don't reproach the witness for following your instructions.

The Chair: The question was asked by Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. The response was it was not within my responsibilities. I say the answers are not to be confined to his responsibilities. The answers are on what Mr. Pelletier knows.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I think in fact the witness is being evasive because in fact it is not impossible to understand the links between something going wrong in a department that is part of the minister's responsibilities and the political ramifications. 

So for the witness to suggest he was not involved and out of touch with all of these aspects we're talking about is just not credible.

I would think, in fact, Mr. Chairperson, that if back in 1994, Alan Cutler came forward to his departmental officials in public works about wrongdoing that that message would have gone--starting in 1994--that that message would have gone directly from the minister or the minister's political staff, to you as the chief of staff--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I believe that as chair you've made it perfectly clear to all members of this committee, particularly, and I assume that those who have attended either all or the majority of the meetings, are aware of your direction, which is that it's very important when asking a question not to give out information which is inaccurate, and I think that it's important, that it would be important for any member who is using testimony that was brought before this committee to do so accurately.

Mr. Cutler testified that he became aware of irregularities in 1994 when his section was merged with that of Mr. Guité but in fact did not signal those irregularities to Mr. Guité's superior until May or June of 1996, so when the member--

The Chair: --Well, thank you, Ms. Jennings, I'm going to say...fine--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --In the Ernst & Young 1996 audit, so I think it's important that the member, when asking a witness questions based on that testimony--

The Chair: --Madam Jennings, please, I hear you, Madam Jennings. Madam Jennings.

 (1200) 

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --She portrayed the testimony accurately.

The Chair: Madam Jennings, you don't have the testimony of Mr. Cutler in front of you and neither does Madam Wasylycia-Leis. Mr. Cutler, again, I will say I don't have the testimony in front of me. He made the formal complaint in 1996 through his union because he couldn't get it on the record before that.

Do you have anything to say, Mr. O'Neal?

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that the letter to Mr. Stobie, the assistant deputy minister at the department, signalling that Mr. Cutler had a problem, was dated May 13, 1996, and is from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

The Chair: And that was when he got the union involved because he couldn't get it through normal channels. He had to-- 

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --Mr. Chair, point of order, that is a mischaracterization of Mr. Cutler's testimony.

An hon. member: That's not a point of order.

The Chair: Well I disagree with you Madam Jennings but nonetheless we're not here about Mr. Guité.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Then I would ask the Chair to pull out the exact testimony that would show that my characterization in incorrect.

The Chair: I'm going to get back to Miss Wasylycia-Leis, please continue.

And if your dates are not correct you can make approximations and so on. If you're not quoting somebody's testimony shouldn't refer to somebody's testimony unless you can say you're paraphrasing or you believe that but nonetheless, but no misleading comments on the record please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chair, I was not trying to mislead the witness or this committee. I was referring to and I have the testimony or at least the synopsis of evidence from Allan Cutler in front of me, I don't have the actual verbatim transcript, this is still a point of order Mr. Chair, on the issue of Mr. Allan Cutler.

I was not suggesting anything other than what he had told us, which was that he had tried very hard to get this information out and to have authorities act on it before he had to go the route of going through his union. In fact he said to us in his testimony...

The Chair: We're not going to get off on a tangent here Madam Wasylycia-Leis, just continue on please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right. When ever, when ever Allan Cutler passed on this information to the channel at Public Works, eventually it did go to the deputy minister of public works and one would think, based on your own analysis that that information, because of the political consequences would have gone to you. Were you made aware of Allan Cutler's concerns, at least in 1996, by 1996 and what did you do about Allan Cutler's testimony?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sorry to say that the member doesn't seem to know well how the...I should say the government functions.

If Mr. Cutler, whom I don't know and I never had heard about before he testified in front of you, had anything to say it went to his deputy minister. Then his deputy minister if it went up to the clerk of the privy council, this didn't at all involve the responsibility of the PMO. It was a PCO matter and it's quite normal with the division of responsibilities that I was very clear about, that we had absolutely nothing to do with that kind of problem.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, I'm not going to get any further with you on that issue.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: And I was not informed, not involved.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me then talk about your role in terms of the politics of the day... 

The Chair: 30 seconds.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: 30 seconds, did you subtract all my time for these points of order? 

The Chair: Yes the clock was stopped.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Your job clearly was to work hand in glove with the ministers who are appointed political ministers for their provinces or regions, so you would have worked directly with Mr. Gagliano, you would have worked directly with Mr. Dingwall and you would have talked about the sponsorship file and about ensuring the best bang for the buck in terms of the political requirements of the day however you want to define them.

So could you tell us a bit about those meetings and what you discussed in terms of the sponsorship file?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Madam the instruction...I should say the rumour that everything is centralized at the PMO is a false rumour. I'm sorry to say I've heard that so many times but it's false.

Mr. Chrétien's instruction was not to give instructions to the ministers except if he would ask us specifically but in the normal course of action it was to coordinate the global action of the government and the delivery of the policies but not to take decisions at the PMO for the ministers.

The minister's took their decisions by themselves or at the committee of cabinet level. That was how it functioned. So you're asking me if I had regular meetings with Mr. Dingwall or Mrs. Marleau or Mr. Gagliano about the delivery of any program, the answer is no.

 (1205) 

The Chair: Okay thank you very much Miss Wasylycia-Leis. 

Mr. Toews please, eight minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

We've heard testimony earlier that back in November of '94 shortly after Mr. Dingwall became the minister of public works that the oversight function in terms of the contracting was collapsed. That essentially procurement and oversight were put together in one body that Mr. Cutler then reported to Mr. Guité and that certainly is of some concern to the committee that those separate function would have been collapsed. 

Mr. Cutler indicated that prior to '94, from '90 to '94 there were no problems in that respect. However with the advent of Mr. Dingwall or certain concurrently there, problems began. Now we heard testimony from Madam Marleau that essentially she was...she went in to clean up the department and in her words, she cleaned it up big time. 

What specific instructions did Madam Marleau receive when she became the minister of public works from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, the mandate letters given by the Prime Minister to a minister is the PCO responsibility, not the PMO and the machinery of government is the responsibility of the Privy Council Office and not the Prime Minister's Office. So we have nothing to do with machinery of government. No, we had nothing to do with instruction letters from the Prime Minister to his minister.

Mr. Vic Toews: If I could just--

The Chair: I'm going to interrupt here.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: It might have been different in other governments--

The Chair: Again, Mr. Pelletier, you're indicating that, because it was PCO's responsibility rather than PMO's responsibility, the PMO had nothing to do with it--I think I'm quoting your words. But the point I put to you: do you have knowledge on this issue?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, sir.

The Chair: Okay, if you have no knowledge, fine.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, it was not our stake and I have no knowledge on these things, sorry.

Mr. Vic Toews: So as the Prime Minister's chief-of-staff, you had no knowledge in the appointment of Madam Marleau as the minister? You were not consulted on that issue at all?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I may have been consulted by the Prime Minister when he formed his cabinet but, after, the instructions that he gave to a minister went through the Clerk of the Privy Council and not the chief-of-staff of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: It might have been different in other governments, but under Mr. Chrétien's term of office it was very clear they were administrative and legislative, we were policy.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. So when Madam Marleau, then, was transferred out shortly after being there for a short period of time, she had indicated she had “cleaned it up big time”. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Chrétien, the Prime Minister, as to her success in cleaning up the department at that time?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't remember having had any conversation with the Prime Minister on this subject. After now that I have given my answer, I'm a bit reluctant to talk about the private conversation I had, as chief-of-staff, with the Prime Minister. I'm very reluctant in speaking to that.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Walsh, can you give us some direction on this, please?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, in my view, notwithstanding the witness's reluctance--and the question seemed to me appropriate--the witness ought to provide that.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I have given the answer already.

Mr. Rob Walsh: The witness ought to be able to answer with regard to that conversation and not withhold the information, I would have thought.

The Chair: Okay. Could you please answer the question, Mr. Pelletier?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I already did, sir.

The Chair: Would you answer it again, please?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I had no conversation with the Prime Minister on that subject.

Mr. Vic Toews: So you've indicated that ministers, of course, knew about the Sponsorship Program in 1997. I don't know what the extent of ministers' knowledge was about the program prior to that time--the advertising contracts, the unity file--but you've indicated that this was the most important file, or one of the most important files, in the Prime Minister's Office. You had no discussions with the Prime Minister in respect of the minister that was in charge of that particular file?

 (1210) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I indicated that when there were rumours, I told them about the rumours. He told me to see the minister, which I did, I saw the minister. There was this internal audit going on and etc., but--

Mr. Vic Toews: And that's what I find curious. You said that you had no involvement in dealing with ministers. Now, you are sent directly by the Prime Minister to speak to a minister.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: But I had said that the Prime Minister, in his instruction, had said that we should not give orders to individual ministers except if he would request us specifically in a case to do that. In that case he has asked me to see the minister, so I saw the minister. I inquired about it and I got answers, which I relayed to the Prime Minister. After all, you know about the rest.

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, I find this very curious. You don't know anything about the appointment of ministers, you don't know anything about the mandate of the minister, and, yet, when there is a problem with the minister in that department, you're asked by the Prime Minister to go and talk to the Prime Minister about that particular problem.

Mr. Alan Tonks: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. May I?

Mr. Chairman, we are advised that you should give the complete context of which question was asked. The context that question was asked, that Mr. Toews is making reference to, was that there were some newspaper articles that had implied or had developed scenarios with respect to the Sponsorship Program. That was the complete context and Mr. Pelletier did answer that particular question.

Now, we're segmenting that context. That may be good--

The Chair: 

We're not going to have a debate across the floor.

Mr. Alan Tonks: --in the jury room, but I don't think it's appropriate in this room.

The Chair: I have a little concern myself, Mr. Tonks. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister and he appoints all ministers to perform the functions of government. He carries an awful lot of weight.

Now Mr. Pelletier has been talking about the Prime Minister's Office coordinates. I always thought that the Prime Minister did more than coordinate. It was his vision, it was his idea, and in this particular case, keeping the country together, it was the most important file.

Here we have a disconnect, in my opinion or my perception between the Prime Minister having a hands-on managing government, and this coordination over all and his chief of staff may or may not have had some discussions with the ministers. They all get together once a week at cabinet.

Mr. Alan Tonks: He also reads the newspaper, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, no, I listened to you and you will listen to my response. Therefore I have this problem of trying to understand this. There seems to be no dialogue in the cabinet between the Prime Minister's Office and the ministers, and so on, so forth. The picture doesn't sit well with me. So I think that Mr. Toews trying to find out the relationship between the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's staff at the PMO and the chief of staff and ministers, and regarding this particular file is a legitimate line of inquiry.

Mr. Toews, please.

Mr. Vic Toews: That's my point. My point is that whenever we've raised issues with this witness about the sponsorship program, he says “It's the PCO”. 

Now he was given specific instruction by the Prime Minister, as the head of the PMO--

Let me finish, perhaps.

Hon. Robert Thibault: Is this on his time or as a point of order?

The Chair: The point is the clock stops during points of order, and so on. So please--

Hon. Robert Thibault: Is this a point of order?

The Chair: No, it's not a point of order.

Okay, continue on, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right.

You know, I understand the Liberals are a little sensitive about this issue, but my concern here is that every time we ask about an issue related to ministers, it's the PCO. Now he's being sent by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chair, to talk to a minister. I want to know what the Prime Minister asked this individual to say to the minister, and what did the minister say back to him to carry on to the Prime Minister?

 (1215) 

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, if you allow me to speak about how it was organized and functioning, this government--

Mr. Vic Toews: I want this specific, let's deal with this specific issue and then you can say whatever you want in respect to whatever else you want.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Would you repeat your question, sir, please?

Mr. Vic Toews: Now you are specifically in this case asked by the Prime Minister, going outside of the regular protocol, to go to a minister and ask about an administrative detail inside the department, something that the PCO usually does. You now say you didn't say “Well, the PCO should maybe do that”, no, you went to the minister. 

What were your instructions from the Prime Minister to the minister? What did you say to the minister? What did the minister say to you to get back to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: When I saw in the paper and then on the street that rumours were growing about possible problems in the delivery of the sponsorship program, I thought it my duty to report that to the Prime Minister, because one of the duties of his chief of staff is to protect the Prime Minister and the credibility, the political credibility of his Prime Minister. 

I thought that with all these rumours and these articles in the paper, it could affect the credibility of the government. So I reported the fact to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said “All right. Would you ask the minister what's about?” 

So I went to see the minister. The minister said that he, himself, had read the same papers, had recorded the same grumbling about the delivery of the program and that there was an internal audit going on, decided. Had that started or was it decided, I can't remember, but anyway, it had been decided.

So I said to the minister “I will let the Prime Minister know about that, but when the internal audit will be finished and you will get the results of the audit, would you please let me know about the results and what you will do after that?” He said “Yes”.

Mr. Vic Toews: Why were you getting involved with the machinery of government at this particular time when you said it was not your function to get involved in the machinery of government?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: So I reported to the Prime Minister that I had seen the minister and there was an internal audit to be going on. The Prime Minister said “Keep me informed about the results”. 

When the minister got the results of the internal audit, he came to see me and said “Look out. We have the results. There's nothing criminal, I'm told but there's ” as I said to you earlier “administrative--”

[Français]

Des problèmes administratifs et de gestion.

[English]

“and there's a list of recommendations to put things back into place”.

I decided that I would ask--and I did ask--my deputy minister to put these recommendations in place and until they're in place, the delivery of the program would be suspended. So I got back to the Prime Minister and reported on what the Minister had told me about the conclusion of the internal audit and the decision he had taken regarding the results. That's it. Then the Prime Minister said to me “Okay. The minister has done his job”.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Madam Jennings, s'il vous plaît.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Merci, monsieur le président. Merci, encore une fois, monsieur Pelletier, pour votre témoignage.

Monsieur Pelletier, je veux revenir à une question que mon collègue, M. Marcel Proulx, vous a posée pour tenter d'avoir une clarification. C'était sur la question que lorsque vous avez été questionné par M. Mackay, des conservateurs-alliancistes, sur la question de vos relations que vous auriez pu avoir avec des gens des agences, dans le privé, vous lui avez répondu en anglais. Il a utilisé le terme « unprofessionnal » et vous avez dit : « Oui ». En tant que Québécoise, je dois dire que j'ai trouvé honteux le fait qu'un membre de l'opposition officielle tente de ridiculiser un témoin, dont la langue maternelle est française et dont la personne tente d'accommoder le membre qui est plutôt unilingue anglais.
 (1220) 

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

This Liberal member is totally mischaracterizing questions that I put to this witness and attributing some kind of motive for doing so that is completely inappropriate.

Now I know there are sensitivities over there about the questioning that's going on here, but these were the words of this witness, not something I attributed to him or tried to mock him over. These were his words. 

The Vice-Chair is a little bit outside the bounds here.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Madam Jennings, the time is your time. It's not to repeat somebody else's time. Therefore focus on your intervention, please.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Effectivement, je mets l'emphase sur mes interventions et si je désire reclarifie quelque chose, qui à mon avis n'a pas été bien clarifié, je vais le faire avec mon temps. Merci, monsieur le président.

Moi, ce que je trouve honteux, c'est que les membres de l'opposition, les conservateurs-alliancistes, et surtout M. Mackay, qui est maintenant le deputy-leader ou quelque chose comme cela, tentent de ridiculiser un témoin dont la langue maternelle est le français en portant confusion sur les termes. Alors, ma question...

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings, Madam Jennings.

I don't think we need to have references about language in this place. 

We have two official languages here. Both are totally and completely appropriate. To make comments about one or the other is off the mark.

So please refrain from these kinds of statements, please.

Point of order, Mr. Toews?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.

Mr. Chair, I was sitting next to Mr. MacKay. I saw absolutely no ridicule on his part. 

The point of order is this. This is the member who ever time we don't use exactly the same words that the witness does objects on a point of order.

Now, Mr. MacKay used a particular word that the witness himself used--perhaps it wasn't the best choice of words--I understand that it may well be the second language, but I can assure everyone that there was not one ounce of ridicule in that--or one gram, I guess I should say.

The point is that we have tried to be fair to every witness and we have tried to respect Ms. Jennings comments that whenever we summarize witnesses' evidence that we do it accurately. Now she's criticizes us for using the exact same words.

The Chair: Madame Jennings, again I would ask you to use the time for your testimony rather than rephrasing and characterizing other testimony.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, if in my view there has been confusion created in the mind of a witness by a particular term that is used, and that confusion may have been caused by the witness's mother tongue being the other official language, then I feel it incumbent on me as a member of this committee to clarify that confusion. In my view, the clarification that was attempted earlier was not sufficient.

I think I have a right to make that clarification. The witness may tell me, “No, I understood perfectly and I'm satisfied with the clarification I made in response to a question from Mr. Proulx”, but the witness may wish to bring further clarity to the particular issue; therefore I think I am perfectly justified in using my eight minutes to make a clarification if I wish, to solicit new testimony if I wish.

The Chair: Madame Jennings, you may feel that way, but if you wish the committee to be clarified, you can raise it on a point of order, not on your intervention. I give all people a great deal of latitude to follow a line of questioning as they so desire. 

 (1225) 

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Point d'ordre.

[English]

The Chair: It's not for me to determine what is relevant in your mind and what is not, but if you're trying to clarify other people's testimony, you would do it on a point of order and not on your intervention.

Please continue.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Point d'ordre, monsieur le président. Monsieur Pelletier, tout à l'heure, quand le conservateur allianciste, M. MacKay, vous a questionné....

[English]

The Chair: Madame Jennings, if you have a point of order, you address it to the chair.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Monsieur le président, tantôt, une question a été posée par M. MacKay, l'allianciste conservateur, à M. Pelletier, l'ancien chef de cabinet de l'ancien premier ministre, M. Jean Chrétien, le très honorable Jean Chrétien, lui demandant la nature de ses relations avec des personnes qui occupaient des postes ou étaient propriétaires de compagnies dans le privé, des compagnies de publicité. M. Pelletier a qualifié la relation comme étant non professionnelle, qui, en français, est tout à fait correct. C'est évident que la langue maternelle de M. Pelletier n'est pas l'anglais et il a fait une traduction littérale du terme. M. MacKay, qui connaît très bien le français--il se prétend d'être pas mal bilingue--, a profité, à mon avis, de ce malentendu, parce que le terme... Je n'ai pas terminé, monsieur le président, parce que le terme en anglais non professional est très péjoratif.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Jennings, I know what you're trying to say. Mr. Pelletier clarified for the record afterwards when the word “unprofessional” was raised—and I was a little concerned about “unprofessional”; non-professional and unprofessional have two entirely different meanings in English—that it wasn't a meeting on a professional basis. It was on a social basis that he met, which is in a non-professional relationship, an amicable, friendly relationship that did not pertain to his job. Mr. Pelletier clarified that quite well and was quite aware of the situation. So your point is ruled out of order.

You have an intervention. Please continue.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: You have used up only one minute and 52 seconds.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Monsieur Pelletier, j'ai plusieurs questions à vous poser maintenant que la question...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, can you please refrain from comments across the floor? We want to hear the intervention.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Monsieur Pelletier... 

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, please.

[Français]

Mme Marlene Jennings: Monsieur Pelletier, j'ai plusieurs questions à vous poser maintenant que la question du terme a été clarifiée au bénéfice de tout le monde dans la salle et je veux remercier le président du comité pour cette clarification.

Vous avez parlé que le personnel qui travaillait au bureau du premier ministre pouvait et probablement avait des contacts réguliers avec M. Guité et son personnel, soit parce que des dossiers demandant des commandites fédérales arrivaient directement dans le bureau du premier ministre, soit parce que des députés de toutes couleurs politiques confondues apportaient un dossier potentiel de commandites directement au bureau du premier ministre, soit parce que le bureau de M. Guité communiquait directement avec le bureau du premier ministre pour dire « nous avons reçu des demandes, on ne connaît pas tellement quel est cet événement, pouvez-vous nous aider à avoir plus d'information ». 

Je vous avais demandé le nom des employés, vous en avez mentionné six au niveau du bureau du premier ministre, avez-vous--on me demande de ne pas frapper le micro, alors je vais tenter de restreindre mes gestes. Alors est-ce que le temps écoulé depuis la première fois que je vous ai posé la question et maintenant vous a permis d'identifier les noms de ces six personnes qui travaillaient au bureau du premier ministre ou quelques-uns d'entre eux?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne sais pas d'où vous prenez le chiffre six.

Mme Marlene Jennings: C'est vous qui l'avez mentionné.

M. Jean Pelletier: Mais je n'ai pas fait cet exercice-là encore, madame.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Mais vous allez le faire et vous allez fournir la liste des noms au président via le greffier?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas de problème.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Parfait. Vous avez également parlé que la question de l'unité canadienne était la priorité pour l'ancien premier ministre, M. Chrétien, et que la politique établissant les commandites, meilleure communication, etc., s'inscrivait dans cette priorité pour améliorer la visibilité et les communications du gouvernement fédéral canadien, au Québec en particulier mais à travers le Canada également, et que c'est de là que cette politique ou ce programme de commandites est né, que jamais, vous ou le personnel de votre bureau qui s'occupait des questions politiques vous êtes ingérés dans l'administration et la gestion de ce programme.

Nous avons reçu un témoignage de l'actuel sous-ministre des Travaux publics, David Marshall, qui nous a dit que c'est de son expérience qu'il peut arriver que lorsque la politique, le gouvernement décide d'une priorité, et c'est une priorité 1, et qu'on veut obtenir des résultats le plus rapidement possible, que le zèle des fonctionnaires peut faire que les fonctionnaires d'eux-mêmes violent ou mettent de côté les règlements et les politiques du Conseil du Trésor. Est-ce que cela ne vous a jamais préoccupé, le fait d'avoir dit « les commandites, la visibilité est une priorité 1 », que malgré qu'il y avait une politique du Conseil du Trésor sur l'approvisionnement, la sélection, etc., que les fonctionnaires pourraient, de leur propre chef, « il faut obtenir les résultats, il faut les obtenir vite parce que c'est une priorité du premier ministre, etc., donc on va mettre de côté les règlements ». C'est une longue question, mais je pense que vous comprenez quand même le sens.

 (1230) 

M. Jean Pelletier: Madame, c'est clair que le dossier de l'unité était prioritaire dans tous ses aspects aux yeux du premier ministre et le message était clair à travers toute la structure gouvernementale que c'était un dossier qui devait avoir l'attention prioritaire de tout le monde.

Maintenant, jamais, ni le premier ministre ni le bureau du premier ministre, nous n'avons demandé à ce que les règles de la Loi sur l'administration financière et que les règles du Conseil du Trésor ne soient pas suivies indépendamment du fait que c'était un dossier prioritaire. 

Enfin, je n'étais pas fonctionnaire administratif du gouvernement. Si le sous-ministre actuel des Travaux publics vous a dit ce qu'il vous a dit c'est que, j'imagine, il avait des raisons de le dire puisqu'il l'a dit, mais là-dessus sa déclaration lui appartient, elle ne touche pas l'action du bureau du premier ministre dans le dossier en aucune façon.

Mme Marlene Jennings: Merci, monsieur Pelletier.

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Merci, monsieur Pelletier.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Ms. Jennings.

Monsieur Crête, for eight minutes.

[Français]

M. Paul Crête: Merci, monsieur le président.

Monsieur Pelletier, j'aimerais qu'on revienne sur les rencontres que vous aviez avec M. Guité. Qui était présent? Quel était l'ordre du jour? Est-ce qu'il y avait des comptes-rendus? Quel était le résultats de ces rencontres-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: Premièrement, il n'y avait pas d'ordre du jour. Deuxièmement, il n'y avait pas de compte-rendu, c'était une discussion à bâton rompu entre lui et moi. S'il y avait d'autres personnes; on me dit que peut-être M. Karl a assisté, ainsi que M. Gagliano. Est-ce que le programme fonctionne? Est-ce que tout va bien? Il demandait toujours un peu plus d'argent et c'était normal. Après cela, on regardait qu'est-ce qui est arrivé dans telle demande et qu'est-ce qui est arrivé dans tel dossier. Il nous demandait si pour tel évènement, qui demande d'être subventionné, on était au courant de cela, etc. C'était un échange mutuel d'information tout simplement.

M. Paul Crête: Vous faisiez le tour des demandes qui étaient préoccupantes.

M. Jean Pelletier: On m'a demandé tantôt si j'avais vu toutes les listes de demandes. J'ai vu des listes, mais est-ce que ce sont toutes les listes? Je n'en sais rien.

M. Paul Crête: Mais lors de ces rencontres-là, vous traitiez les demandes une après l'autre, un certain nombre de demandes, pour dire : « Celle-là est acceptable, celle-ci non, pour telles raisons... »

M. Jean Pelletier: Je faisais comme je le fais ici, je répondais à ses questions.

M. Paul Crête: Vous répondiez à ses questions? Celles de M. Guité?

M. Jean Pelletier: Oui, M. Guité me posait des questions sur certains dossiers et je répondais à ses questions.

M. Paul Crête: Mme Huguette Tremblay nous a dit qu'il avait régulièrement des appels de votre bureau. À ce moment-là, vous ne répondiez pas aux questions. C'était certainement votre bureau qui posait des questions.

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, vous m'avez demandé de parler des rencontres que j'ai eues avec M. Guité, alors je vous ai donné des réponses dans le cadre de ces activités-là. Là, vous allez sur un autre dossier.

M. Paul Crête: Non, c'est le même dossier, monsieur Pelletier, puisqu'il y a certainement un lien entre le fait que vous aviez des rencontres...

M. Jean Pelletier: Oui, mais entre des appels téléphoniques...

 (1235) 

M. Paul Crête: Je voudrais finir ma question. Vous aviez des rencontres régulièrement avec M. Guité et entre ces rencontre-là, il y avait des appels téléphoniques qui ont été faits de votre bureau au bureau de M. Guité. Vous me dites qu'il avait une liste d'activités comme telle qui était évaluée, si vous aviez les informations, et vous me dites que vous répondiez à ses questions. Alors, je veux savoir si les appels téléphoniques effectués après avaient des liens avec ces rencontres-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: J'imagine à ce moment-là. Je vais revenir sur le dossier dont j'ai pris l'exemple tantôt, le dossier de la ville de Saint-Hyacinthe. À un moment donné, j'ai dû dire à M. Guité : « Le dossier de Saint-Hyacinthe, il faudrait qu'on fasse un effort, parce que c'est une célébration communautaire et qu'il n'est pas question de faire de la politique partisane là-dessus. Les gens célèbrent un évènement important dans leur communauté. Si vous êtes capables de les aider, je pense qu'ils seraient heureux et que tout le monde serait heureux. Le maire de Saint-Hyacinthe, le curé, l'évêque et le député seraient heureux. » Après cela, il est fort possible que j'aie dit à quelqu'un de mon bureau : « Informez-vous où est rendu le dossier de Saint-Hyacinthe. » Après, qu'elle ait pris le téléphone et qu'elle ait appelé quelqu'un dans le bureau. Je suis convaincu que ce n'était pas un appel téléphonique fait directement à M. Guité, mais à quelqu'un de son bureau pour lui dire : « Le dossier de Saint-Hyacinthe, il est rendu où? Avez-vous pris une décision? Est-ce que vous avez pris une décision au bon moment et quand est-ce qu'ils vont savoir qu'ils ont l'aide qu'ils réclament? »

M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que vous saviez, à ce moment-là, monsieur Pelletier, qu'il y aurait 96 000 $ de commissions versés sur une demande de 125 000 $?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas du tout.

M. Paul Crête: Vous n'étiez pas au courant de cela?

M. Jean Pelletier: Pas du tout. Je répète que nous ne sommes jamais entrés dans la gestion du programme, jamais, ni au niveau du choix des intermédiaires, ni au niveau des contrats, ni au niveau des conditions de contrats, ni au niveau des conditions de commandites ou de commission ou quoique ce soit.

M. Paul Crête: Vous vous contredisez formellement, monsieur Pelletier. Vous me dites que dans les réunions, il y avait une liste de commandites que vous étudiez et en même temps, vous me dites que vous n'êtes pas entré dans le programme. Où est la réalité?

M. Jean Pelletier: C'est-à-dire qu'une fois que la décision est prise, monsieur Crête, qu'on va donner je ne sais pas quoi, un montant d'argent à X, comment c'est livré, cela ne nous regarde plus. On n'entre pas là-dedans. 

M. Paul Crête: Comment vous pouviez nous dire que vous n'étiez pas responsable des influences de votre rôle et tenir des rencontres avec la personne qui gérait ce programme-là au niveau administratif, alors que vous nous avez dit tout le long que vous aviez aucune responsabilité et aucun lien administratif?

M. Jean Pelletier: Je trouve cela amusant que vous me parliez de la responsabilité de mon influence. Est-ce qu'on n'est jamais responsable de son influence? Monsieur le député, on n'est pas responsable de son influence. On a de l'influence ou on n'en a pas.

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, est-ce que vous ne vous sentez pas responsable dans votre tâche de l'effet que ce type de rencontres-là auraient sur le choix des commandites? Est-ce que c'est cela que vous êtes en train de me dire?

M. Jean Pelletier: Mais non, monsieur. Tant mieux si mon témoignage a pu débloquer des dossiers dont celui de votre collègue, je n'ai rien contre cela et je pense que je faisais ma job. Je pense que le cas d'un député qui transmet à un service une demande de subvention et qui essaie d'avoir autant d'influence qu'il peut sur la personne à qui il s'adresse pour avoir une décision positive, c'est exactement la même chose. 

M. Paul Crête: Mais ce que vous nous dites...

M. Jean Pelletier: Dans ce temps-là vous faites bien votre travail, et je faisais bien le bien.

M. Paul Crête: Vous nous dites que vous n'êtes pas conscient de l'influence que vous aviez à ce moment-là. Est-ce que quand vous nous dites qu'il n'y a pas de direction politique, que c'est le rôle du politique et que ce sont les règles...? Mais dans ce cas-là il y a eu deux rapports internes: celui de 2000 et rapport Ernst and Young de 1996. Malgré les correctifs qui ont été apportés, une chose est certaine: il y a eu de la surfacturation, du copinage, du non-respect des règles. Qui était responsable de cela, monsieur Pelletier? 

M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'en sais rien, monsieur. C'est à votre comité de le trouver. Je vous donne l'histoire que je connais, celle du bureau du premier ministre dans ce dossier. Je suis le plus clair possible. Le reste, je ne suis pas au courant. Vous allez avoir d'autres témoins. Vous le leur demanderez.

M. Paul Crête: Cela veut dire que vous avez été chef de cabinet du premier ministre, vous avez demandé qu'il y ait des vérifications auprès de M. Gagliano. Il vous a répondu qu'il y aurait une vérification interne et après, vous n'êtes jamais allé vérifier s'il y avait quelqu'un de responsable, en bout de ligne, de cette question-là?

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, je veux...

M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que c'est ça que cela veut dire?

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, j'ai clairement indiqué, au moment où la vérification interne a été complétée, que le ministre m'a informé des résultats de la vérification ,qu'il y avait apparemment absolument rien de criminel. Deuxièmement, qu'il y avait des problèmes d'administration et de gestion et qu'il y avait des suggestions, je pense que c'était 37 si le nombre m'est resté à la mémoire, pour remettre la gestion et l'administration du programme à l'ordre, telle qu'elles le devaient ou elles auraient dû l'être. À ce moment-là, le ministre m'a dit: «J'ai demandé à mon sous-ministre de voir à mettre ces recommandations en marche de façon à ce que les choses reviennent comme elles auraient dû être». Entretemps, le programme, l'administration du programme, est suspendue. Alors j'ai pris ce qu'il me disait et j'en ai fait part au premier ministre parce que je pensais que le premier ministre voudrait bien savoir, tel qu'il me l'avait demandé, quel était le résultat de tout ça. À partir de là, ce n'est plus ma responsabilité comme directeur du premier ministre de suivre l'administration de tous les programmes de dépenses dans tous les ministères. Je suis désolé, on n'est pas équipé pour cela, ce n'est pas notre job.

 (1240) 

M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, est-ce que vous êtes conscient que vous avez exactement le même schème de défense que les ministres qui nous ont dit qu'il n'y avait pas de responsabilité ministérielle? Dans votre cas, comme chef de cabinet vous avez une influence, vous le reconnaissez, mais vous dites: «Je ne suis pas responsable du résultat de mon influence». Je vous répète ma question: qui est responsable dans ce cas-là du terrible gaspillage d'argent qu'il y a eu dans ce programme où on a détourné de l'argent de façon importante et structurée? Vous étiez en haut de la pyramide de structure, qui est responsable de cela?

M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, je voudrais d'abord dire que je ne suis pas ici pour protéger personne. Je n'ai pas travaillé mon témoignage de ce matin avec qui que ce soit sauf mon avocat. Je ne suis pas ici pour dire autre chose que la vérité que je connais. Je n'ai personne à protéger. Je dis exactement ce qui s'est passé. Cela me fait de la peine au plan politique que cela ne fasse pas votre affaire, cela me fait beaucoup de peine. Mais je ne peux pas en dire plus que ma vérité, celle que je connais, sans limite. J'ai essayé d'être le plus précis et le plus explicatif possible. Mais qui est responsable du gâchis s'il y en a eu un? Je ne le sais pas.

Le président: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Pelletier.

M. Jean Pelletier: 

[English]

Mr. John Williams: 

Mr. Mills, I understand that you're going to be sharing your time with Mr. Cuzner for the next eight minutes.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Chair, I think that we should all remember that we were talking about 1,986 projects over a five-year period. Canadians forget that. 

Mr. Crête referred to this project in St. Hyacinthe. I think that he was trying to let Canadians think this was only commissions that were paid. Again, I come back to my whole focus on production costs. There were obviously production costs in there. We have to make sure, before we make judgments, that we have all the X-rays.

One of the concerns that I have, colleagues, about the focus and the direction that we've been taking this morning, is that Canadians must think that the sponsorship project to save Canada, to promote the Government of Canada presence in Quebec, only happened there. 

I only want to remind members, and remind Canadians, about a few of the other projects that this project benefited. I'd like to read a few of them into the record; projects that happened outside Quebec.



The Chair: A point of order, Mr. Toews. 

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, I'm just wondering--

Mr. Dennis Mills: This is my time

The Acting Chair (Mr. Vic Toews): --is Mr. Mills now giving testimony that we can examine him on in respect of whether these are the same sponsorship programs? That's something I wouldn't mind examining Mr. Mills on at a later date. But is it really the right time to be bringing evidence before...? We have witnesses who can actually bring evidence before this rather than having political speeches from Mr. Mills. 

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Toews. I think it was with Madam Wasylycia-Leis yesterday that I said that a member has the right to use their time as they see fit. If Mr. Mills wants to talk about the Bluenose or programs that were sponsored, that's within the confines of our examination, so I'm sure he will.

Mr. Mills. 

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, in response to Mr. Toews, I'd be happy to be a witness at a later point--

 (1245) 

The Chair: But you haven't been asked, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: --if he asked me to on the projects that I've been involved in as a result of the sponsorship program from World Youth Day, which I'd be happy to be a witness on, from the Family Farm Tribute, from others that I've been on. I'd be happy to be a witness and sit in this chair and show how not only did we provide value for money, but in fact we did impact studies and showed that those projects had an economic benefit to Canada. But at any rate, that offer is open to Mr. Toews any time he wants to put me in as a witness. 

The Canadian Association of Journalists Convention, the Canadian Human Rights Conference, the Canada Winter Games, these are all projects outside Quebec, and I think it's important that Canadians understand. The Naganoads, all of the CFL teams, all of the NHL teams, the Pan Am Games in Winnipeg, Cornerbrooke Canada Games, the Young Presidents Organization, Youth and Learning Community Newspaper--these are all outside Quebec--research services for the Public Policy Forum, Skate for Hope in British Columbia, Tennis Canada, their tour of young tennis players all across Canada, the Molson Indy, Toronto, Vancouver, Lobster Festival 50th Anniversary, the National Orchestra of Canada, the New Brunswick Games, the Nova Scotia International Air Show, Opportunities Rural Ontario, Lacrosse Game of the Week, Laurentian University 25th Anniversary, Halifax 250th Birthday--this is my time--East Coast Music Awards, the Edmonton 2001 World Track and Field, the Edmonton Drillers Soccer Club, Canada Games, Brandon, Manitoba, the Arctic Games, the Police and Fire Games, the China Team Canada TV series, the Italian Veterans' Association of Niagara Falls, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, the Acadian Food and Culture Festival, and the Blue Jays Amateur Hit-Run-Throw. please verify all event names

Now, colleagues, I think it's fair ball to ask the toughest questions of any of our witnesses. I've been driving hard here for eight weeks to get the people in front of us who received the money. We've been driving hard to ask them, “What did you do with that taxpayers' money?” But I think that we should--the agencies--and I know the Bloc Quebecois supports that the chief financial officers--

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Is my time up?

The Chair: Your four minutes.... You're eating into Mr. Cuzner's time now if you continue. 

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I just want to round it up and say, colleagues, that we should not ever forget that this was a national program. I'm sure that those 1.987 beneficiaries of this program, if we asked them if there was a benefit, I'm sure most of them would respond that it was most beneficial to their survival or their going forward.

Thank you. 

The Chair: 

Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Cuzner you have about three minutes. 

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have to recognize the restraint from the entire committee. I'm sure they all felt, like myself, they wanted to stand up and sing “O Canada,” because this is a program that has had great reach right across the country, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chair: Okay no conversations across the table please.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: As is the practice in most ministerial offices Mr. Pelletier, most ministers do have regional desks and i recognize that the Prime Minister's office as well has a regional desk and with...from your testimony you've met with Mr. Guité every second month or so, would there be a person on your staff junior to you that would have met with him on a more regular basis or would there...I guess more specifically, would there have been a Quebec desk that would have been responsible for the sponsorship files?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't think anybody met more than I did with Mr. Guité, except maybe Mr. Carl in the...in his responsibilities as director of operations for the Prime Minister but apart from that I don't see and you know at that time the Quebec desk was almost mine.

I'm trying to give the list as I told Mrs. Jennings of people who might have been from my office in contact with the office of Mr. Guité but... 

 (1250) 

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But nothing comes to mind just now, somebody that would have been working the files along with you, the Quebec files?

Recognizing the significance of this program with the members from Quebec and the ministers from Quebec, are you aware of, you know the discussions amongst the Quebec ministers that would relate to the Sponsorship Program?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't recall any discussions about or the Quebec ministers relating to this program. I don't recall any. I think that you know, the program has been decided by the Prime Minister in cabinet so the program was administered by one of their colleagues and if each they had some activities that they wanted to be sponsored by the program, I'm sure their offices, respective offices had links with the group administering the program but I don't recall about, you know a big discussion of ministers, Quebec ministers on the program, I don't recall that at all.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: 

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Cuzner. Okay merci beaucoup.

Mr. Kenney, we're now on to the third round so this is four minutes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: May 30 of 2002, then Prime Minister Chrétien said, “perhaps there were a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process.“ speaking about the Sponsorship Program. Do you agree with your former boss, Mr. Chrétien that perhaps a few million dollars might have been stolen out of the Sponsorship Program?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: My opinion on that I think is not relevant sir and I had left the office of the Prime Minister a year before that...

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, it's not for you to determine whether it's relevant, it's...the question has been asked.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm sorry but I've got no opinion on that subject.

The Chair: No the question wasn't whether you had an opinion, what was your question?

Mr. Jason Kenney: My question was, do you agree with your former boss that a few million dollars were stolen in this program? You're here to testify about this program, we're trying to identify a part, amongst other things whether there is criminal wrongdoing. Your former boss offered an opinion on this that a few million dollars was stolen. I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with him.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, you're asking me a judgment.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm not here to judge, I'm here to testify and I won't express any judgment on anybody who has made judgment before knowing the facts.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Well Mr. Chrétien did he made that judgment before knowing the facts?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know sir.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So are you accusing him of just being fast and loose with the facts when...

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I've not nothing to say on that record.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So you have no opinion whether money was stolen here or not?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Based on the information that you have can you...I have another question.

The Chair: Okay no Mr. Kenney let him answer. Mr. Pelletier please.

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I really believe that fast conclusions have been given without all the facts to be known. I hope that all the facts will be known and then a judgment will be put on the facts. But as one of the member just said, you have not yet been asking questions from the agencies, you know don't know. So I'm sorry, I cannot judge. 

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier--

Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm here as a witness, not as a judge.

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, this is not a criminal investigation. It's not for us to judge. It's for us to get the facts on the table for Canadians to know what is going on. This is not a criminal court. This is an enquiry by Parliament, because government reports to Parliament and Parliament is trying to find out what government was doing in this particular file, because according to the Auditor General a large amount of money cannot be explained.

This is where you can't say that you can't answer these questions. All questions before a parliamentary committee have to be answered if we insist, so--

Hon. Walt Lastewka: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Rob Walsh: I would ask that our legal counsel again repeat the purpose of this committee.

The Chair: All right, well, let's get that.

Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Rob Walsh: I don't think I heard what the member was saying.

The Chair: He asked what is the purpose of this committee.

Mr. Rob Walsh: My understanding of the purpose of this committee of enquiry is to look into the so-called sponsorship scandal with regard to ministerial and possibly deputy ministerial accountability program.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chair--

The Chair: All right. That, of course, includes other people closely associated with these--

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chairman, I think it's prudent that we stick to the purpose of this committee. We tend to go off it in trying to lead witnesses, which I think the previous speaker has been trying to do, rather than posing the questions along the line toward the purpose of this committee.

I object when it's being slanted, Mr. Chair.

 (1255) 

The Chair: Mr. Pelletier decided that he would refrain from answering a question because he would suggest and I can't remember his exact words, but this was a...I'll say for lack of a better terminology, you maybe could repeat what you were saying, Mr. Pelletier, but the point we're trying to say here is this is a public enquiry. We're trying to find out and understand the parameters within the problem happened and for you to say that you can't answer the question is not appropriate.

Is that correct, Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Rob Walsh: If I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think a distinction has to be made between asking the witness to exercise a judgment today and to express that judgment; and asking the witness whether at the time he heard the remarks of the Prime Minister to which the member referred in his question he had any judgment at that time about that. 

The latter question is a question of fact, whether he or did not have a judgment at that time or form one at some point and what that judgment was. But to ask a witness today what his judgment is on something, it might be understandable that is a matter on which a witness may be reluctant to testify or may not have a judgment on which to express himself at this point.

The Chair: Do you understand that, Mr. Kenney?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I think it's...you know, you said something a few minutes ago that this is not a court of law--

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Dennis Mills: --and I agree with that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dennis Mills: But you allowed Mr. Toews to stand on the record last week that $100 million was stolen. He repeated that several times in his testimony and he stated that before we have all the facts in front of us--

The Chair: Mr. Mills, we can't have every word proven before every word is said. The Auditor General has...and her terminology was “$100 million, little or no value”, I believe--

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's not accurate.

The Chair: She also went on to point out-- 

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's not accurate.

The Chair: --clearly and explicitly how huge commissions were paid for little or no value.

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's not what she said, sir.

The Chair: And Mr. Minto from the Auditor General's office before this committee when I asked him “Do you mean little or no value for a very large commission in the tens of thousands of dollars”? He said “Well, maybe they had a 48¢ stamp”. So--

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's not accurate, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: That is accurate, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: That isn't accurate.

The Chair: That is accurate, Mr. Mills, because I asked--

Mr. Dennis Mills: I asked her the question and she said....I asked her specifically and you were here. I said “There's a perception out there that a $1 million went out the back door and we all know that's a lie” and she said she was unable to get all the records.

The Chair: She had serious concerns about the value for $100 million.

Mr. Dennis Mills: That's not accurate. 

The Chair: Well, that's why we're here.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm going to take it up--

The Chair: Now we're going to get back to Mr. Kenney. 

Mr. Kenney, you heard what Mr. Walsh said. You cannot ask Mr. Pelletier today on the basis do you believe that the Prime Minister's statement of May 30, 2002 was appropriate. But you can ask him regarding did he discuss the matter with Mr. Chrétien at that time and so on and so forth.

Mr. Jason Kenney: 

Right.

Well, as I continue with my time, I just want to make the point that the purpose of this committee is to answer the question for Canadians how much of their money was stolen and where did it end up. The former Prime Minister expressed an opinion about money being stolen. For the record, his former right-hand man has no opinion on that question. 

Mr. Pelletier, you earlier testified that you heard “street rumours” about this program, which caused you to approach the Prime Minister and discuss it. When did you hear these rumours and what was the nature of these rumours?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, it was at the end of 1999, probably, or the very beginning of 2000. It was before the internal audit was launched. We were reading in the Montreal press that there were only a few firms that had been involved in the delivery, that there was suspicions of all sorts.

So I thought that this might be negative for the image of the government and we should simply look into the matter to see if things were all right or not.

Mr. Jason Kenney: All right, thank you.

You said that there were “street rumours”. Did you hear rumours other than what you read in the Montreal press?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, yes. I was going to the Press Club, and people would...you know what Ottawa is?

· (1300) 

Mr. Jason Kenney: What was the nature...?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: There are a lot of rumours in Ottawa.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Could you specify what some of those rumours might have been? You said earlier that there was suspicion of all sorts. What kinds of suspicions? Suspicion of what kind of activity?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Suspicions that they were higher commissions than should have been and that it was directed to some particular firms, and that others were not admitted to get contracts and etc.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So would you agree that the nature of these rumours, did you ever hear rumours about the practice known as “dry cleaning”, which the Sun newspaper chain reported? Quoting a senior government official, referring to ad agencies buying bottles in cases of Pétrus wine at $4,500 a bottle that were in part served to the Prime Minister at a trip in Hong Kong, and that this was one way of dry cleaning the overcharges by the ad agencies. Did you ever hear rumours of this nature, of dry cleaning?

Mr. Jean Pelletier: Never.

The Chair: Your time is up.

We're going to break for lunch. But before we do that, in response to Mr. Mills, and I'm quoting from the Auditor General's November 2003 report, this is from the “Overall Main Points” on page 1. This is her testimony:

We found that the federal government ran the Sponsorship Program in a way that showed little regard for Parliament, the Financial Administration Act, contracting rules and regulations, transparency, and value for money. These arrangements--involving multiple transactions with multiple companies, artificial invoices and contracts, no written contracts at all--appear to have been designed to pay commissions to communications agencies while hiding the source of funding and the true substance of the transaction.


She goes on:

During that period the program consumed $250 million of taxpayers' money, over $100 million of it going to communications agencies as fees and commissions.


That is a direct quote from the Auditor General's report. 

Madam Jennings.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, on a point of order. I will read her response to me when I asked her a question specifically about it, this afternoon, from the blues.

The Chair: Of course.

Madam Jennings, do you have a point of order?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: 

Yes, I do. It comes back to the questioning that was being made of the witness, based on Mr. Alan Cutler's testimony, and documentary evidence that he tabled before this committee, and the questioning was alluding to complaints that Mr. Cutler would have made up the ladder and that presumably the witness should have been aware of that. I have gone through both the documentary evidence that Mr. Cutler provided and his testimony and the only reference that I have found where Mr. Cutler made aware a superior of Mr. Guité is, and I will quote, page 46 of 115. It's during his statement, opening statement, he says: 

In April 1996, matters came to a head and I once again refused to sign an approval authority and contract. Monsieur Parent indicated that there would be a price to be paid for my refusal. Following this I sought the assistance of my union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service. On my behalf, the institute wrote to Jim Staub, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Government Operations Services Branch. In 1995, Mr. Staub replaced Rick Neville as Mr. Guité's immediate superior.


And then it says:

The union's letter to Mr. Staub dated February 13...


And then there's a second section where he again refers to informing a superior. That is in response to questioning by Mr. Odina Desrochers and it's page 54 of 115 and the question was:

Mr. Cutler, you of course mentioned the report when you noticed that there were irregularities. Did you forward any complaints to the deputy minister or the minister to tell them that improprieties were being committed in one of the services of his department?


Mr. Cutler's answer:

No, there is an established protocol of how to proceed. You have to also realize that now, in a new organization, with a new chain of command, I do not know my ADM, I do not know the chain of command above Mr. Guité. I don't know the individuals and I haven't had any dealing with them. In order to rectify a situation you also have to build the case and have very solid evidence before you can do anything. There is an established protocol and one of the protocols is that you get the backing of your union, which is the way I elected to go.


· (1305) 

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Ms. Jennings.

We'll now break for lunch. We'll reconvene at 2 p.m.

* (1405) 

The Chair: We're back and we're resuming on two things before we go back into the testimony.

I have here for distribution the report from the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee, which I read into the record this morning. There was one issue that I didn't (inaud) . When you talk about the times that the committee will meet, that also includes the Subcommittee on Witnesses and the Steering Committee, as they will meet also within that same timeframe, because there's a lot of hours devoted to meetings. If per chance there is no public meeting, it may be because the Subcommittee on Witnesses is meeting, or the Steering Committee is meeting. So that's for distribution.

Mr. Mills caught my attention and would like to say something.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is just a point of clarification. You were quoting from the Auditor General before we adjourned. I'd like to "put on the record" my point to the Auditor General and her response when she appeared in front of us. To put it in context:
Ms. Fraser, in your report in chapter 3, page 3, you identified that the sponsorship program covered 1,987 events across Canada... 
and on and on. I asked her about the $100 million and she said:

This is an estimate we did based on my understanding. The Public Works' systems do not give that kind of breakdown. I think you'll have to ask Public Works for more information. 

Then I went on to say, I interrupted her:
I hear you, Madam Fraser, and I realize I have a very short amount of time, but you can understand there's a perception in the media and in the community out there that $100 million went out the back door, when in fact there were real production costs related to signage of all these events. I mean, we realize and we admit there were flaws and mistakes, but I really think we have to separate the good work that was done from the work that was flawed and stained. 

Ms. Fraser responds:

We have certainly said that there were services rendered for some-- 
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Is Mr. Mills intervening under the cover of a point of order? We've probably wasted upwards of an hour of the committee's time and opportunity to question witnesses with points of debate disguised as points of order. I would ask the chairman, on a point of order, to promptly rule out of order what are points of debate for myself or anyone else so that we can focus on questioning the witness.
The Chair: It just seems that unfortunately so many people want to read back into the record from the record to put back on the record what's already on the record. 
Can you just finish up there, Mr. Mills, and we'll move on.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes, Mr. Chair, you will acknowledge that I sought your permission and you suggested it be a point of clarification. I have one sentence to read, and I'm quoting Ms. Fraser:
We have certainly said there were services rendered for some part of that $100 million, be it production fees or the management of those activities. 
And I said, "Thank you".
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.
Mr. Tonks, you are on for four minutes.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, just a little preamble. We've had a great deal of discussion with respect to the manner in which the government of the day regrouped itself in terms of facing one of the most serious political issues of our time, which was the referendum and the implications with respect to the destruction of the country.
* (1410) 
The Chair: Do I hear cell phones again in this room? Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Tonks. Please proceed.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, people would understand that we would attempt--any government would attemp--to regroup. The issue is in regrouping and were there instructions given through the system to do things, for example, like bending the rules out of shape? The committee is trying to get a handle on that element of it, and the extent to which that happened.
My question to Mr. Pelletier, and I hadn't really appreciated it until I fully read Mr. Guité's testimony, that he indicated in his testimony that the Federal-Provincial Relations Office provided his organization, Mr. Guité's organization, with strategic direction and the Privy Council Office was part of that group. I'd like to ask Mr. Pelletier once again, just for clarification, did the PMO give instructions or directions to this strategic group?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
Mr. Alan Tonks: A further question to that, then, it also was indicated that the Privy Council Office was part of that strategic group, so my question to Mr. Pelletier is, did the PMO, to the best of his recollection, give instructions or directions to the Privy Council Office, which would be a back-door way to start managing the contracts and so on?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: To my knowledge, no.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. Then, I have just one question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pelletier also indicated, to the best of his knowledge, the Financial Administration Act had been, in fact, adhered to. In Mr. Guité's testimony, he indicated, in a question from Mr. Proulx, that when invoices were presented, for the most part, there was a separation--contrary to what we had been told, there was a separation with respect to the administration of the contracts, and then the final approval that was given, and his role in that.
And I'll read:
The department could not pay an invoice without a contract, so if the invoice came in and there was no contract, you can't get pay the invoice. Therefore, when I issued a contract, it went through the contract branch of our department, when I signed an invoice it went through the financial branch and they matched the two. There's a contract, there's an invoice, it's authorized for payment; therefore, we issued a cheque. 
The Chair: You are reading from Mr. Guité's testimony?
Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm reading from Mr. Guité's testimony. There's no page number.
My question to Mr. Pelletier: is that his understanding with respect to how an administrative group or unit would operate under the Financial Administration Act?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, as we were not at all involved--the PMO--in the administration of the program, I'm not in a position to say that this process was the right one or not. I presume that the financial direction of the department was doing his job, but I'm not the one to tell you it happened that way. We're not at all involved in the process of administering the program.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Pelletier.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Jordan, please, four minutes.
Hon. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Pelletier, one of the things that strikes me as we're looking at this issue and what happened, why it happened--we're yet to determine the extent of the damage--it becomes clear to me that one of the things that went wrong systemically was that the communications activities, under Mr. Guité, a decision was made at some point that this office would exist outside the normal reporting structures, in the sense that he, as an executive director, would report right to the minister.
The implications of that are that by not reporting through his deputy the PCO oversight and the responsibilities that a deputy minister would bring in terms of evaluation mechanisms to his sphere of influence were either deliberately or unintentionally bypassed. That's one of the reasons, in my view, this particular practice of maybe not documenting properly and not adhering to the Financial Administration Act, that's why it was allowed to go on so long before it was actually detected and corrected.
Do you have any personal knowledge as to exactly why, or perhaps who, might have made the decision, in terms of the organizational structure and the reporting structure of this particular entity?
* (1415) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Member, as the PMO is not at all linked to machinery-of-government issues, I don't have any answer to give you on that. I don't know. It's a question that you should ask to the authorities of the departments and to PCO, not to PMO.
Hon. Joe Jordan: Were you aware--
The Chair: I would say, Mr. Pelletier, if you do know the answer, if you are aware--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm not aware, sir.
The Chair: You're not aware, okay.
Hon. Joe Jordan: Were you aware at the time, though, there was a different reporting structure that was really outside the norm, in terms of this particular office?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. But the fact that things were happening, I took for granted that it was at the knowledge of the minister and of the deputy minister, and that I didn't question. That's not my role: to see who's doing what.
Hon. Joe Jordan: My final question has to do then with this notion of the level of politics involved in this file. I think we're getting a clearer picture of what was going on at the time and it's always risky to look back and Monday morning quarterback, but distinctions have been made and phrases have been thrown around. Your long history in public service, do you in your own mind make a distinction or have a definition of what would constitute legitimate political direction and what would constitute political interference?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't have a dogma in my head. I think it's a question of good judgment in the files.
Hon. Joe Jordan: I guess I have one more question then.
In terms of a larger policy of increasing the federal presence and assorted complementary messaging in Quebec, Mr. Guité, when he testified talked about the polls--I was assuming he was talking about the level of support for the various sides--were there any other evaluation mechanisms in terms of the macro strategy of increasing visibility? How did you determine whether or not this was working?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Well, you know, we get the polls every month about where are our parties. For us it was easy, the Liberals were federalist, the NDP was federalist, the Conservatives were federalist. The only party that was not federalist in the province was the Bloc, and the PQ at the provincial level. When you compare what was the level of support for the Bloc or the PQ versus all the others combined, we had quite a clear sense of what was going on. It doesn't take a magician to know that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. MacKay, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, there's been a lot of magic being woven around this entire affair, Mr. Pelletier.
I have a question for you about your previous testimony wherein, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you indicated in response to my question about your presence at a box at the Molsen Centre in which Mr. Jean Lafleur was present, Mr. Jean Carl, I believe you also said was there, and François Beaudoin . You indicated to me that you had no involvement in pressuring Mr. Beaudoin or members of the BDC at any point to hire Mr. Jean Carl and I believe you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the only involvement you might have had was to suggest that a certain executive search firm might be used to help fill that position. Is that correct?
* (1420) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I didn't say that all, sir. I said that PMO and Mr. Chrétien and PMO and myself were never in any way involved in the hiring of Mr. Jean Carl by the Development Bank.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you never made any recommendations on behalf of a certain executive search firm?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not at all. I wasn't involved in anything like that and if it is the pretension of Mr. Beaudoin that it happened otherwise, it's not true.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Well, Mr. Pelletier, I'm quoting from the National Post of February 14 where you're quoted specifically--you are quoted--as saying "I never spoke to anybody at the BDC about hiring an executive search firm".
That contradicts the evidence that you gave earlier today.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not at all. It's exactly the same thing.
Mr. Peter MacKay: You suggested earlier that you had given advice only on the use of an executive search firm--
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. I said exactly the contrary of what you've just said.
The Chair: Order.
Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay: We'll check the blues on that.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Check the blues, all right, my friend. I know what I said.
Mr. Peter MacKay: You talked at length at times about the separation between legislative and administrative roles and that of political roles and you suggested that there was never any political influence whatsoever exerted by you, your office, the Prime Minister, ministers to your knowledge, and yet, we have the current Prime Minister specifically alluding to political direction that was given to rogue bureaucrats.
You discount the current Prime Minister completely on that score. You say there was no political direction whatsoever given.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I own my answers, and the answers I've given you are my answers.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Correct.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: If someone has said other things, ask them why they've said that, but this is not my story and I'm telling you the story I know and the story based on facts.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you would agree that this runs completely contrary to what the current prime minister has said. You would agree with that.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I am not aware of exactly what the prime minister has said, but I'm saying I'm absolutely reluctant to accept any idea of possible political direction in the administration of the delivery of the sponsorship program coming from PMO.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.
The Chair: Next we have Monsieur Thibault.
[Français]
S'il vous plaît, quatre minutes.
[English]
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Français]
Monsieur Pelletier, pourriez-vous nous indiquer quelle différence vous voyez entre une implication par l'intermédiaire du bureau du premier ministre ou du bureau d'un ministre ou d'un député, comme une implication politique dans un dossier, et une ingérence administrative?
M. Jean Pelletier: Si le bureau du premier ministre avait choisi des firmes pour être les intermédiaires pour la livraison du programme, si l'on avait déterminé que tel dossier allait à telle firme et que les conditions de paiement à la forme étaient celles-ci et non pas celles-là, nous serions intervenus dans l'administration et dans la livraison du programme.
Nous n'avons touché à cela en aucune façon au bureau du premier ministre. Probablement que nous avons exprimé des avis à savoir s'il était opportun de subventionner tel dossier plutôt que tel autre pour une raison x, y ou z. Toutefois, la décision finale n'était pas prise par le bureau du premier ministre. Si le bureau qui administrait était plus influencé par nos commentaires que par ceux de Pierre, de Jean, de Jacques venant d'ailleurs, je ne peux rien y faire. La décision n'était pas prise au bureau du premier ministre.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Merci. Reculons un peu. Avant d'arriver au bureau du chef de l'opposition, quelle profession exerciez-vous?
M. Jean Pelletier: J'ai présidé pendant un an et demi une commission au Québec sur les politiques quant aux aînés. Avant cela, j'ai été maire de Québec pendant 12 ans.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Quelle profession exerciez-vous avant d'être maire de Québec?
M. Jean Pelletier: J'étais dans le monde des affaires. J'étais dans les finances et les communications.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: J'imagine bien qu'on vous a invité à venir au bureau de l'opposition parce que vous étiez un grand partisan du Parti libéral, et que c'était votre récompense pour vos années de service vis-à-vis du Parti libéral.
* (1425) 
M. Jean Pelletier: Non, je suis absolument désolé, mais je n'ai pas été membre du Parti libéral avant d'arriver à Ottawa en 1991. Je n'ai pas été partie à la convention de 1990 qui a élu M. Chrétien chef du parti. Pendant toutes les années où j'ai été maire de Québec, je n'ai engagé aucune participation politique partisane à des niveaux autres qu'au niveau municipal, à la tête de mon propre parti. Je pense que la raison pour laquelle M. Chrétien m'a demandé de venir lui donner un coup de main, c'est parce que nous sommes de vieux confrères de collège. Cela fera 50 ans en septembre prochain que nous nous connaissons. Nous avions une bonne amitié, un bon respect l'un de l'autre. Je pense qu'il avait confiance à la fois en ma loyauté et en ma capacité de diriger un bureau, et moi j'avais confiance qu'il ferait un bon premier ministre. J'espère qu'il n'a pas été plus déçu que moi je l'ai été, parce que moi, je n'ai pas été déçu.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Les résultats ont certainement été très biens pour les deux.
Avez-vous eu l'occasion de voir, pendant vos années en administration, des gens, des bureaucrates ou d'autres politiciens indiquer qu'ils avaient parfois fait sentir qu'ils avaient des relations un peu plus directes avec des ministres ou avec le premier ministre qu'ils n'en avaient en réalité?
M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que c'est bien dans la nature humaine de faire croire qu'on a beaucoup de pouvoir, qu'on a beaucoup de relations et qu'un coup de téléphone reçoit de suite une réponse à l'autre bout. Je pense que c'est dans la nature humaine. Tout le monde fait cela, monsieur le député.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Serait-il...
M. Jean Pelletier: C'est ainsi pas seulement dans l'administration, mais dans la vie courante, dans le monde des affaires, partout.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Serait-il concevable pour vous de penser qu'un bureaucrate ou qu'un administrateur ayant des relations avec des gens du bureau d'un ministre indique qu'il ait eu des réunions ou des contacts personnels avec le ministre, ou qu'il dise en retour à ses subordonnés qu'il a reçu les instructions du ministre, plutôt que de dire qu'il les a obtenues d'un subordonné du ministre?
M. Jean Pelletier: C'est parfaitement possible. C'est très possible et très probable. J'ai eu l'impression, durant toutes ces années où j'étais au bureau du premier ministre, que beaucoup de monde utilisait mon nom sans que je le sache.
En effet, parfois, ma secrétaire venait me dire qu'un de mes amis «très personnels» m'avait téléphoné et voulait me parler, alors que je ne connaissais même pas la personne. 
La nature humaine est la nature humaine.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, well, we'll let it pass. 
Madam Jennings, please, four minutes.
[Français]
Mme Marlene Jennings: Merci, monsieur le président.
Monsieur Pelletier, vous avez tenté d'expliquer à mes collègues de l'opposition qu'il y avait une étanchéité entre le bureau du premier ministre et le bureau du Conseil privé.
Peut-être que je me trompe, mais j'ai cru comprendre qu'avant 1993, ce genre de mur n'existait pas entre ces deux bureaux, entre le politique et l'administration, relativement au gouvernement.
Est-ce que je me trompe?
M. Jean Pelletier: Non. Je pense, madame, que vous avez raison. C'est d'ailleurs ce qui a fait que M. Chrétien a été tellement clair avec les sous-ministres au lendemain de son assermentation, en novembre 1993.
Il a commencé par dire aux sous-ministres qu'il avait aboli dans tous les bureaux de ministre la fonction de chief of staff; qu'il en avait gardé un seul dans le gouvernement, soit celui de son bureau. 
De plus, il a dit qu'il avait aboli cette fonction pour qu'il n'y ait pas, justement, de zone grise ou imprécise entre les fonctions du cabinet d'un ministre et les fonctions du sous-ministre et de la bureaucratie.
C'est à ce moment-là qu'il a précisé que sous-ministres et fonctionnaires étaient responsables de la partie administrative et législative du gouvernement, et que c'était à eux à donner à leur ministre respectif les avis dans ces deux domaines. Par ailleurs, il y aurait aussi, dans le bureau de chaque ministre, un personnel politique qui, lui, serait responsable des aspects politiques des dossiers et qui, lui, indépendamment de la fonction publique, donnerait ses avis au ministre.
Je me souviens-et je réemploierai les mots mêmes de M. Chrétien, dont je me souviens parfaitement:
[English]
if you do that, everything will go well. Your minister will look good. And if your minister looks good, you will look good also.
* (1430) 
[Français]
C'est à partir de ce moment-là que-le lendemain-, on a structuré les relations entre le bureau du premier ministre, le PMO, et le Conseil privé, le PCO, de telle façon que chacun reste pour tous les dossiers que nous avions à... sur lesquels on travaillait ensemble, mais que chacun reste sur son territoire. L'un est administratif et législatif; l'autre est politique.
Relativement cette question, vous feriez témoigner l'ancienne greffière du Conseil privé, Mme Jocelyne Bourgon, elle confirmerait exactement que, dans les faits, cela a fonctionné ainsi.
Mme Marlene Jennings: Étant donné ce que vous venez de nous affirmer, que pensez-vous, à ce moment-là, d'un sous-ministre, qui croit qu'un contournement se fait en matière politique, soit entre son ministre, le personnel politique de son ministre, et les fonctionnaires qui, normalement, se rapportent à lui-le sous-ministre-, par les différentes hiérarchies, et qui ne dénonce pas cette situation à son employeur ou à son supérieur hiérarchique, soit le greffier du Conseil privé?
M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne sais pas si vous référer à quelque chose de particulier. Je n'ai pas suivi tous les...
Mme Marlene Jennings: Il s'agit de M. Rand Quail.
M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai pas suivi cela. Si un sous-ministre, dans un ministère, ne trouve pas que les choses se produisent comme elles devraient se produire, et que c'est à l'intérieur de la fonction publique, ou bien il accepte ce qu'il n'aime pas ou bien il s'en plaint à son supérieur, qui est le greffier du Conseil privé.
Est-ce qu'il l'a fait ou non? Je n'en sais rien.
Mme Marlene Jennings: Merci.
Le président: C'est tout?
[English]
Okay, we're coming to the end of the second round, and I'm going to ask a few questions myself. Some people have indicated that perhaps we should wind down, and if there is unanimous consent we can do that. If others still have some questions they would like to ask, then of course we will continue.
Okay, there seems to be some indication...Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, of course, is always after me for another turn. It seems to me she's indicating the same. 
Anyway, I was going to ask a few questions myself. 
Mr. Pelletier, you mentioned that Mr. Guité came to your office a couple of times a month or whatever, but never at your request. Is that correct?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: That's correct.
The Chair: Was this at the request of some of your staff, or at his request?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I presume it is at his request. It might have been somebody at my office who wanted this meeting to happen. I don't recall.
The Chair: So did he just show up, coffee in hand and say, "Let's have a chat", or did he come on business?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. As I indicated previously, Mr. Chairman, when we had these meetings, I was asking questions about certain files that had been through our office directed to him or to his staff. I was asking the state of affairs in these files, and he was also asking me what I thought about such an event, or such an event, or such an event. I would give our comments.
The Chair: So if Mr. Guité hadn't been so diligent in following up on your opinions on these files, you would never have had an opportunity to express an opinion on these files.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sorry, sir.
The Chair: If Mr. Guité hadn't been so diligent in coming to your office on a regular basis to get your opinions on these files, you would never have been giving opinions on these files, because you never called Mr. Guité to express an opinion.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: The results that I got through what was happening made us happy enough not to complain or not to have any worries.
The Chair: Okay, but you--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: If it had been, I would probably have called the minister.
The Chair: Okay. So this is the most important file on the Prime Minister's desk--the country had to be saved--and a couple of times a month, Mr. Guité would show up, say, "All is well". You give him your blessing, on you go, and that's it?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I read the testimony of Mr. Guité, and I think you heard it yourself.
The Chair: I did.
* (1435) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think that it indicates that he was apparently strong enough to administer his program without failing too much.
The Chair: Now, you have pan-government responsibilities, being at the central office, the Prime Minister's Office. How many other middle managers and other departments came to you to discuss their files?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know. Not many.
The Chair: Not many, but Mr. Guité on a regular basis.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Guité, because it was one of the aspects of the federal strategy about Canadian unity.
The Chair: Because this file was important to you, was important to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I was very much involved in the Quebec desk, the Quebec affairs.
The Chair: Yes, I can understand, and I expect that you would have been involved. I would expect that you would have been very much involved, involved daily. You would have been scrutinizing the media to see what they were saying. You mentioned the polls on a monthly basis. Perhaps you were polling more often on a monthly basis. You were actively, intimately and completely engaged in the file, I would presume.
I have a problem saying that, once every couple of weeks or so, Mr. Guité would come into your office--at his timing, not your timing, according to what you say--and give you an update, and you would give him your blessing, saying, "You're doing a fine job".
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, not once every two weeks, once every two months. That's a bit different, if I may say so.
The Chair: That's even less credible than once every two weeks, because this is the most important file that you had, remember, and this was the guy who was carrying the can for you. This was the guy who could go out and snap his fingers and buy $8-million worth of billboards, every billboard in the province of Quebec. Did he not come to you and say, "I just bought all these billboards, what do you want to put on them?"
Mr. Jean Pelletier: This, I heard through his testimony. I didn't know before, about all the billboards and the $8 million. I read that in his testimony yesterday, or in the press when you made the testimony public last week. I may have read that in the Saturday papers.
The Chair: But the Prime Minister said the sponsorship program was "central and crucial to your initiative to save Quebec".
Mr. Jean Pelletier: One second, Mr. Chairman. 
The sponsorship program came after the referendum, not before and not during. The billboards were referendum, period, if I'm well informed. Sponsorship came after. Don't mix the two.
The Chair: But we're investigating from 1993-1994 onwards, all through Mr. Guité's--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: But you know what happened in 1995 didn't happen in 1996, what happened in 1996 didn't happen in 1997. You must consider the periods.
The Chair: But Mr. Guité, because you were so actively involved, because the Prime Minister was so actively involved, and this was the most important file the Prime Minister had on his desk, and the Prime Minister said that the sponsorship program was integral to his plan to keep Quebec well within Canada. 
Now, you're telling me once every two months or so, you would get an update as to what was going on, on the most important file on your desk.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I don't know if you know the daily work of the chief of staff to a Prime Minister. It runs from 8 a.m. in the morning to 10 o'clock at night. You don't have time to see every file, every day, every week, and you've got a team, if I may finish, you've got a team of 90 person who are devoted in various sectors. You've got the provincial desk, you've got the communication, you've got the operations etc.
We had every morning what we call the senior staff meeting at a quarter to nine and people would report on all aspects of the policies that they had to deal with.
The Chair: Was the clerk of the privy council at these meetings?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
The Chair: Never?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Never.
The Chair: So the senior staff did not include the clerk of the privy council.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It was the senior staff of the PMO.
The Chair: Okay the...
Mr. Jean Pelletier: ...and at 9:30 the clerk of the privy council and the chief of staff to the Prime Minister jointly would go and see the Prime Minister and it was the operations committee of the government really. 
The clerk would arrive with his files, I would arrive with mine, we would give our say to the Prime Minister who would make decisions and gives us instructions.
The Chair: So here you have your running the political wing, the PMO of the Prime Minister's staff, you got the feedback from your staff as to what's in the newspapers today, what is happening, you've got the lastest poll results, you've got the responses of the lastest initiatives, more advertising, less advertising, more speeches or whatever the score may be.
And also at the same time, at 9:30 you've the clerk of the privy council saying the machinery of government is delivering what the Prime Minister wants be it contracts of advertising, whatever else the government does and the three of you are there, the PCO, the administration of government., you as the chief of staff, the political wing of the government, both reporting to the Prime Minister together and you say that you're not aware of how the administration was working.
* (1440) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm not...it's not my...the machinery of government is not my...
The Chair: Did the clerk...
Mr. Jean Pelletier: We're talking about the files, we're not talking about the administration of files.
The Chair: I said did the clerk...did the clerk of the privy council ever tell the Prime Minister in your...when you were there, that there was some serious problems with the contracting on this program, on this file?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not that I remember sir.
The Chair: The auditor general tells us that many many files have little or documentation, no contracts and I quoted earlier about false contracts, false invoices and so on from her report. Were you concerned about the lack of value you were getting for the money that was being spent?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir I had not...the files of the program in my office, they were, they files were at public works. I didn't know what was in the file, missing in the file, first and it was not my duty to see if we had good service for good money. That was not my responsibility.
The Chair: When Mr. Guité came to you and said I' recommending that we advertise this way, that way, sponsor this event, that event and so on, did he give you competitive bids, did he give you any costs or did he just give you a list with numbers and names attached?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No what he, what we saw was name of files who wanted to be sponsored with the amount that they wanted to get, period.
I never saw a list, I don't recall having seen a list of, I should say, sponsored events with...for each event the number of the sponsorship.
The Chair: Now the Prime Minister and you as his lieutenant were driving this file I presume, this Quebec...
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No. 
The Chair: You were not driving the file?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It depends, it depends what file you're talking.
The Chair: I'm talking about the unity of the country.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: The overall file of unity of the country, yes but the file of... the specific file on the Sponsorship Program was the responsibility of public works.
The Chair: But you and the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister assisted by you and your staff were driving the unity of the country file forward. In that...
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, no sir not only us, I think that there was a chap by the name of Stéphane Dion who was also a bit involved into the unity file, I don't want to deprive him from his good work results.
The Chair: No we will recognize that but no doubt he was working, he was not working, contrary to the Prime Minister, he was working in harmony because he was taking his direction from the Prime Minister too.
Now the point that I'm trying to say is that because the Prime Minister, assisted by you and the PMO staff, aided by the PCO who did the...put the thing together afterwards, must have given some direction in order for us to move this unity of the country file forward we have to enhance the name of Canada and the province of Quebec. 
That's pretty well, I believe what the Prime Minister said was a major component of the file. In fact you've made mention of that yourself today.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: 
A major, an important one.
The Chair: Okay, important.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Because there were others in all departments, sir. All departments were involved in the unity file.
The Chair: That's right. Including Mr. Dion's.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think the Minister of Agriculture was sensitive to the farmers of Quebec. I think the Fisheries minister was also sensitive to that. It was an overall government policy.
The Chair: Driven by the Prime Minister.
So, a major, significant, important part of that was the sponsorship program. Did that initiative come out of the PMO, in your office or the Prime Minister, or did it come from Mr. Guité and his department?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: What, the sponsorship program?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't recall, sir. I don't remember.
The Chair: So while the Prime Minister was driving the most important file in the country, the unity of the country, sponsorship being, I believe your word was "important" part of that, the notion of this being an important part of the whole unity file maybe didn't come out of the PMO but may have come out of the sponsorship, CCSB program?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: You know, there was an advertising program far before, many, many years. I don't know to what year, but many, many years before-- 
* (1445) 
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Dingwall told us yesterday, yes.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: This was really ongoing before the referendum.
The Chair: Yes, it goes all the way back to the Trudeau years, he said.
A voice: Before.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Guité was in charge. Guité was in charge of that program.
The Chair: Yes, but Mr. Dingwall told us that this advertising agency record goes all the way back to the Trudeau era, as well.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Very good.
A voice: It was 1979.
The Chair: Okay, 1979.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: So Mr. Guité was administering that. Actually, it was, I should say... 
[Français]
Une réorientation du programme de publicité du gouvernement à travers un programme de commandites qui a été décidé en 1995 ou en 1996, c'est comme ça que cela s'est fait. On dit: « on va donner plus d'importance à la visibilité du gouvernement du Canada au Québec après le référendum et faites en sorte que cela se produise de façon à ce qu'on stimule la fierté des Québécois à être aussi Canadiens ». Voilà. Mais qui a eu l'idée? Pour moi de n'est pas très important, l'important c'est que le programme soit né et qu'il ait donné des résultats.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, if it wasn't important as to who came up with the idea, because no doubt you were canvassing every idea that you could find, was it endorsed by the Prime Minister and by your office?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It was certainly endorsed by the Prime Minister because there's no program given birth to without the Prime Minister's pre-approval.
The Chair: So did you give some specific direction that we wanted to accomplish this or that, or something else? Did you say "This is how we envisage this program working?"
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le président, le premier ministre et le Cabinet ont décidé d'un programme, ils ont dit quelle sorte de programme ils voulaient et dans quel but, ils ont fixé les buts du programme. À partir de là, c'est à la machine de le livrer.
[English]
The Chair: You didn't follow up to find out if it was achieving the goals?
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Quand je vous ai répondu tantôt qu'à compter les résultats des pôles qu'on avait où on voyait que les partis fédéralistes montaient dans l'appréciation des Québécois, on avait clairement une idée que l'ensemble des mesures qui avaient été prises dans le dossier de l'unité avait des résultats positifs.
[English]
The Chair: So once a month when the poll results came in, you looked at them and said "We're doing fine, we don't need to fine-tune the program and we don't have to micromanage the program, it's just doing fine".
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Bien, chacun faisait son analyse et essayait de contribuer à des résultats encore meilleurs le lendemain. Je ne comprends pas trop votre question.
[English]
The Chair: So it was being managed on a more frequent basis than a monthly basis.
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne comprends pas trop votre question.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, did the Prime Minister ask you on a daily basis or on a more frequent basis "How's the Quebec file coming along? How are we doing?"
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, I think the Prime Minister, as any Prime Minister, is very interested in any polls coming out and wants to know about details of the poll, region by region.
The Chair: On a monthly basis.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm not too sure that members on Parliament on an individual basis have less interest.
The Chair: You're right. How very true. How very correct, Mr. Pelletier.
Okay, question?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Question. I have a question, yes.
The Chair: Okay, I was going to go to....
You've got a single question, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I believe it was my turn, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: No, it was not your turn.
We're going to start round three if it is the desire of the committee. I felt, I said earlier, I know Ms. Wasylycia-Leis always likes to get in around for the last word, so we have to start a round three. Therefore we're going to start with Mr. Kenney, Mr. Crête, Mr. Mills, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, then Mr. Toews and Mr. Lastewka.
So, Mr. Kenney, yes, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.
Mr. Pelletier, I'd just like to pursue what you discussed with Mr. Guité during your bi-monthly meetings. You've indicated that he would appear at your office with lists that included the names of sponsors and, I believe, as well the dollar amount for the sponsorship. Is that accurate? 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: As I indicated, I never saw a list with the amounts finally decided to appear. What I saw were lists of demands with the level of each demand in dollars. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: I see. 
Would Mr. Guité during these meetings invite your response to each individual request or proposal?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, no. I didn't see everything because it would have taken hours. 
* (1450) 
Mr. Jason Kenney: Exactly what was he seeking from you, what kind of approval or authorization or information was he seeking from you?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think I answered already that question in saying that nor Mr. Guité nor his staff were able to know about every activity that was asked to be sponsored, so they had to dig information from maybe the member's office, or the Prime Minister's Office, or people in a particular sport or a particular field.
Mr. Jason Kenney: But I don't understand this, Mr. Pelletier. You're telling us, as you've said before, that, for instance, he would ask you, you know, what is going on in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, and should we be involved or engaged there? Why would he come to the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister rather than, say, the person and staff who are handling the Quebec desk in the PMO, or for that matter, the Quebec desk in Minister Gagliano's office? Why would he come to the chief of staff to seek local political information on what's happening in Quebec?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, there is no absolutely sure evidence that he didn't do that as well. He may have called--
Mr. Jason Kenney: But why would he be coming to the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister? Did he ever explain to you why he was coming to you?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: You should ask him this question when he will come.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, didn't you ever ask him?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You never asked him. See, this is the thing we find very peculiar. Mr. Pelletier, this is what we find very strange. Mr. Dingwall claimed yesterday that Mr. Guité essentially didn't exist, for all intents and purposes, while he was Minister of Public Works, didn't hear about him, didn't know about him, didn't see him, didn't meet him. Madam Marleau testified that Mr. Guité arrived at her office shortly after she became Minister of Public Works, and she sent him packing saying, "You don't report to me. Go back and talk to your deputy." Mr. Gagliano said vaguely, "I think maybe I met with this guy two, three, four times a year." 
Now, you're the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister and you have these regular meetings with him where he's coming forward to you, where his own minister won't meet with him, and you're having us believe that this is a normal way of doing business. How could that possibly be that it wouldn't raise questions in your mind? 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I think that I didn't see Mr. Guité during 1993, 1994. I started to see Mr. Guité on a more regular basis--once every two months about--after the referendum took place and because of that unity file. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right. 
Isn't it true, Mr. Pelletier, that in these meetings essentially he was seeking ongoing direction and approval from you on the way that he was managing the program and the grants that he was approving? Isn't that true?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: He was not asking our blessing on how we would administer the program, he never did. He was not the type to do that either. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: It was just the time to get your views on what was happening in Saint-Hyacinthe. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, and he would be probably out of budget and seeking for more funds. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: So was it normal practice in the public service of over 400,000 employees and $160 billion budget for the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister to receive a line manager in one department lobbying for additional funds for his program? Was that normal? Was that how you normally conducted your business? 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I said that the unity file was a special file. I would have seen any janitor related to the unity file if the unity file made it necessary for me to meet. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: So he lobbied you directly for additional funding--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, yes, he did, and his minister did as well, and finally when there were supplementary estimates, you will see that some years there was some added money and some years there weren't. 
Mr. Jason Kenney: 
Okay, Mr. Pelletier--
The Chair: Mr. Kenny, I'm going to interrupt at this point in time. We have about an hour left in the meeting. I was thinking that since we've started round three that we'd go eight minutes for the first two rounds and so on, but perhaps in fairness to everybody I'll give you one more question and we'll go four minutes and so on. Is that okay? Or would you rather proceed differently?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have several questions I wanted to get through. I have three more minutes. I created my line of questioning anticipating the eight minutes.
The Chair: Okay, I'll discuss it after you've finished your eight minutes. I did expect that you'd have eight minutes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Pelletier, did you meet with any frequency with Pierre Tremblay after he assumed the position that Mr. Guité had vacated as head of the sponsorship program?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think Mr. Tremblay got into the job in...?
* (1455) 
Mr. Jason Kenney: 1999.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: 1999. Up to my departure in June, so it's a little less than two years, I certainly had a few contact with Mr. Tremblay. But, as I have mentioned before, I knew Mr. Tremblay personally better than I had known personally Mr. Guité and I don't think that Pierre Tremblay came to my office, or maybe once, but the contacts with Pierre Tremblay were more by telephone.
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right, but would you have characterized them as regular telephone contacts?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Certainly--
Mr. Jason Kenney: To discuss the sponsorship program?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't think that the rhythm of my contacts with Mr. Tremblay was more different than the contacts that I had with Mr. Guité.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I asked you earlier and we didn't get a chance to get a direct answer. Of the program that you proposed Mr. Guité fund through the sponsorship program, did he ever reject any of your requests for funding? Did he ever come back to you and say "Mr. Pelletier, we're not going to fund that program?"
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think he did when he had no money.
Mr. Jason Kenney: But otherwise he...all right.
My final question, sir, is this. You said that you'd heard suspicions of all sort, on street rumours; that you were reading articles in the year 2000 about the mis-administration of the program, including what you characterized as rumours about inflated commissions and essentially rule breaking, in terms of the way these contracts were let to ad agencies; and you brought this to the Prime Minister; and then you went to Mr. Gagliano; and the internal audit came back and they said "No problem, Mr. Pelletier, these are just administrative problems. There is nothing untoward or illegal involved here." My question to you is this, having heard rumours, what you believed to be credible rumours about inflated commissions and rule breaking, why did you accept this response that these were merely administrative problems? Why didn't you probe further? Or did you simply want to protect your boss by not knowing what was really going on in this department that has since been revealed by the Auditor General?
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que votre dernier commentaire était un peu insultant. Si, pour protéger mon patron, j'avais manqué à ma responsabilité d'officier public, je pense que cela n'aurait pas été très correct, et ce n'est pas beaucoup mon genre. 
Cela dit, quand il y a eu des questions à propos de l'administration et de la gestion du programme, je pense que c'était bien plus à la vérification interne de nous dire quels étaient ces problèmes. S'ils avaient découvert dans leur vérification des choses incorrectes, ils en aurait dit plus qu'ils en ont dit, j'imagine, et les conclusions de la vérification, je n'avais pas de raison de ne pas les accepter comme telles. Quand le ministre m'eût eu dit que les conclusions comportaient des suggestions d'amendement aux procédures dans à peu près 37 cas, 37 points pour améliorer le processus, et qu'il avait demandé à son sous-ministre de voir à ce que ces suggestions de correction de processus soient mises en marche et en place, à partir de là, personnellement je ne vois pas quelle est la responsabilité du bureau du premier ministre. Je pense que c'est une responsabilité administrative qui dépend bien plus du sous-ministre et de la bureaucratie que du bureau du premier ministre, ne vous en déplaise, monsieur le député.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kenney.
Monsieur Crête, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.
[Français]
M. Paul Crête: Monsieur Pelletier, effectivement à partir de ce moment-là il a quand même continué à y avoir beaucoup de questions en Chambre sur cette question. Cela devait revenir au bureau du premier ministre assez régulièrement à savoir. comment ça qu'ils s'acharnent sur cette question, est-ce qu'il y a des éléments additionnels à fouiller. Est-ce que vous n'avez pas eu à vous pencher sur cette question dans les mois qui ont suivi?
M. Jean Pelletier: Vous savez, monsieur le député, à la période de questions, quand à un moment donné, il y a un dossier, qui pour les députés de l'opposition est un bon os, on essaie de le gruger jusqu'à la moelle, mais il ne faut pas qu'on perde...
M. Paul Crête: Je pense, monsieur Pelletier, que dans le cas présent, on avait mauditement raison.
M. Jean Pelletier: Mais il ne faut pas qu'on perde les pédales pour autant. J'ai connu le dossier des Ressources humaines qui a fini d'un milliard de dollars à je ne sais pas combien. Le ministre était responsable de son dossier et il répondait en Chambre. Qu'est-ce que vous voulez, à ce moment-là, est-ce que j'étais pour répondre à sa place?

M. Paul Crête: Non, non, ce n'est pas cela que je vous dis. Vous étiez chef du cabinet du premier ministre et c'est un dossier qui revenait encore régulièrement après que vous ayez avisé le premier ministre, après que vous ayez eu des remarques de la part du sous-ministre concerné et on continuait à poser des questions. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'il fallait que vous le reconnaissiez comme tel à ce moment-là, mais est-ce que cela ne vous a pas amené à aller reposer des questions pour vérifier si effectivement on avait changé le comportement? Parce qu'après la vérification de Young en 1996, après la vérification interne de 2000, les choses continuaient.
* (1500) 
M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, je voudrais vous dire d'abord que la vérification de 1996, je n'ai jamais entendu parler de cela. La première vérification dont j'ai entendu parler, c'est celle du début de 2000 et je vous ai dit que les résultats sont arrivés au printemps 2000. Je vous ai dit que j'ai été absent durant les mois de juillet, août et septembre. Quand je suis revenu, il y a eu l'élection et quelques mois plus tard, j'ai eu le Sommet des Amériques à gérer et ensuite je suis parti. Alors, je ne me suis pas préoccupé de ce qui m'apparaissait, une fois le rapport du vérificateur interne déposé, la suite des choses, être la responsabilité du sous-ministre.
M. Paul Crête: J'ai une question d'un autre ordre sur la série Maurice Richard. Vous nous avez dit que vous aviez été mis au courant, de l'information...
M. Jean Pelletier: Je n'ai pas été au courant de la série Maurice Richard comme telle. Ce qu'on m'a dit, c'est qu'il y avait une série où il y aurait plusieurs boîtes gouvernementales qui participeraient à une commandite combinée.
M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que vous saviez l'ordre de grandeur, par exemple de Postes Canada, de 1 625 000 $, Via Rail et les autres?
M. Jean Pelletier: Non monsieur.
M. Paul Crête: Est-ce que vous connaissiez le coût global de cet évènement-là?
M. Jean Pelletier: Non monsieur.
M. Paul Crête: Vous ne saviez pas qu'il y avait 7 500 000 $ qui seraient engloutis dans cette production-là non plus?
M. Jean Pelletier: Non monsieur.
M. Paul Crête: Moi, ce qui m'étonne beaucoup dans le témoignage, c'est que vous nous avez fait une démonstration, surtout depuis qu'on a repris, que le premier ministre avait dit au sous-ministre : « Il n'y aura pas d'ingérence dans votre travail. » Après cela, vous avez eu des rencontres, à tous les deux mois, avec M. Guité, qui était un intervenant du middle-management, de la gestion. À tous les deux mois, alors que vous auriez normalement dû passer par le sous-ministre en titre du ministère. Comment est-ce que vous expliquez cette contradiction-là de votre comportement avec la directive du premier ministre?
M. Jean Pelletier: Il n'y a pas de contradiction entre mon comportement et ce que je vous ai dit. D'abord, vous avez souligné : « Pourquoi avez-vous rencontré M. Guité? » Parce que c'est celui que le ministère m'envoyait et que c'était à la connaissance de son sous-ministre et à la connaissance de son ministre. À partir de là, il n'y avait pas de problème à ce que je le reçois. 
Deuxièmement, je vous ai dit que nous faisions des représentations comme n'importe quel bureau de ministres ou n'importe quel bureau de députés, pour répondre aux demandes des citoyens canadiens et des organisme canadiens qui étaient passés par le bureau du premier ministre pour avoir accès à ce programme, ce qui était parfaitement normal.
Je vous ai dit que jamais nous sommes entrés dans l'administration interne du programme et dans sa gestion. J'ai dit, à je ne sais pas combien de reprises depuis 9 h ce matin, que nous n'avions pas été impliqués dans la sélection des agences, ni dans les attributions de contrats, ni dans la fixation des taux de services professionnels rendus par des agences ou de commissions qui devaient être chargées par les agences. On n'a rien vu de cela et si nous avions fait cela, nous aurions contredit la directive du premier ministre qui datait du 5 novembre 1993, parce que le politique se serait mêlé de la gestion administrative, ce qui n'était pas notre cas. On ne l'a pas fait, alors ne dites pas qu'on a contredit, par mes rencontres avec M. Guité, la directive du premier ministre du 4 novembre 1993 , que l'administratif et le législatif, c'est à un endroit et que le politique est à un autre endroit, pas du tout. Il faut que c'est deux niveaux-là, qui sont distincts, chacun dans leur territoire, il faut qu'on soit en contact et chacun retient son territoire et n'entre pas dans le territoire de l'autre.
M. Paul Crête: Mais la marge entre le rôle d'un fonctionnaire qui va vous voir, comme chef de cabinet du premier ministre, et que vous donniez votre avis sur des commandites, sur celles qui sont pertinentes et celles qui ne le sont pas, est-ce qu'il n'y a pas là une ingérence tout à fait inacceptable qui reflète l'esprit général de tout ce scandale?
M. Jean Pelletier: Est-ce que vous me permettez, en tout respect, monsieur le député, de vous faire remarquer que ce qui est en cause ce n'est pas le choix des activités commanditées, c'est de la façon dont les sommes d'argent sont sorties du gouvernement pour se rendre ou pas à ces évènements commandités. C'est ce qui est en cause. Le programme lui-même n'est pas en cause. Le programme n'est pas déclaré illégitime, pas une miette. L'influence politique qui a pu exister sur le choix de telle activité à être subventionnée plutôt qu'une autre, tout cela n'est pas en question. Ce qui est en question, c'est de savoir s'il y a eu de la fraude dans l'administration des sommes d'argent. C'est ça qui est en cause. Il ne faudrait pas que vous perdiez de vue ce qui est finalement en cause pour tout le reste de battage politique, que les partis trouvent utile de faire à ce moment-ci. Je ne les en blâme pas, mais il faudrait pas qu'on perde de vue ce qui est vraiment en cause par le rapport de la vérificatrice générale.
* (1505) 
M. Paul Crête: Vous comprendrez, monsieur Pelletier, qu'il est normal qu'on pose des questions parce qu'il y a des agences en bout de ligne qui ont commandité le Parti libéral de façon importante et on trouve des corrélations très nettes entre les agences retenues et les contributions aux partis politiques presqu'à des pourcentages près. Donc, il est très normal qu'on aille au fond de cette enquête pour savoir si effectivement il n'y avait pas quelqu'un qui tirait les ficelles solidement là-dedans.
M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur le député, je n'ai pas d'objection à ce que vous fassiez votre travail et je vous encourage à le faire et à bien le faire. Tous les Canadiens ont envie de savoir ce qui s'est passé. Mais vous ne trouverez pas de réponse aux questions auxquelles vous venez de faire allusion au Bureau du premier ministre. Il n'y a pas de réponses à trouver là. Je vous le dis, il n'y en a pas.
[English]
The Chair: 
Merci beaucoup.
Mr. Mills, please.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I'm going to be sharing my time with Mr. Lastewka, so cut me off at four minutes.
The Chair: I will.
Mr. Dennis Mills: You know, colleagues, many of us have served in this House for a long time. I've been around here for 16 years and I've spent my entire political career intervening on behalf of my constituents. I consider political intervention sort of part of my responsibility.
There have been times in the last 16 years when I've gone to ministers for support and when I didn't get it, I would go to the Prime Minister's office and lean on them for support, because I think that is part of what a member of Parliament is supposed to do, is to work as hard and as focused as he can for your constituents. So I get confused at the two-faced side of this exercise that we're going through here over the last little while questioning political intervention as if it's some kind of a sin or something that's forbidden. I just do not take that position.
I've never questioned the fact that we find if there is stained money here, but I think that Canadians should know that parliamentarians have a responsibility to intervene politically day in and day out. And I have gone to the Prime Minister on more than one occasion in the last 16 years, even the previous Prime Minister, Prime Minister Mulroney, because I felt that there were times when I couldn't get ministers to act, to go right to the top.
So my question to you, Mr. Pelletier, because there's some question here today, what do you consider to be appropriate versus inappropriate political intervention?
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Il faudrait demander à des gens plus compétents que moi. Je pense qu'un député, qui est aussi un ministre, se doit de faire des représentations par son bureau pour le bénéfice de ses électeurs. Évidemment, il y a toute sorte de règles et de conflits d'intérêt qui font qu'un ministre ne peut pas ceci, ne peut pas cela. Mais il y a des façons de faire les choses. Par exemple, lorsqu'on veut faire des interventions dans le domaine de la justice et qu'on ne peut pas parler à un juge ou quoi que ce soit, on peut passer par le ministre de la Justice qui lui fait le contact avec le juge en chef du tribunal concerné, s'il y a quelque chose. À ce moment-là, il y a suffisamment de filtrage pour ne pas qu'il y ait d'abus. Vous êtes en train, je pense, si ce n'est déjà fait, d'adopter une loi sur un commissaire à l'éthique. Alors, j'imagine qu'il faudra poser à ces gens, beaucoup plus compétents que moi, des questions à cet égard.
* (1510) 
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: Last short question.
But you would not find it inappropriate if a member of Parliament appealed to you on a certain file on behalf of his or her constituency?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not at all, including members of the opposition.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.
The Chair: Twenty seconds left.
Mr. Lastewka, please.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to some of the comments yesterday and today on the Unity Fund. It's my understanding, Mr. Chair, that the fund was set up in 1979 under the Conservative government and was $21 million. It was operated under the Advertising Management Group. I understand when the next government came in they also had the fund for $21 million. From 1984 to 1993 the Unity Fund ballooned to somewhere just over $100 million. It was still managed by, what I understood, was the Advertising Management Group.
In 1994, it's my understanding that as a result of things that had happened in previous years there was a desire to put some guidelines in place. My understanding from yesterday's testimony is that there were no guidelines in place from 1979 to 1993. Is that correct?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I am not in a position to answer that, I wasn't there before 1993.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Were you involved in the setting up of the guidelines in 1994?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: So you had no contact with the minister and you were not involved in the setting up of the guidelines that eventually came to Cabinet?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't recall having been, no, at all. The Unity Fund was, I should say, managed by the department of the Prime Minister, PCO.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Under the Advertising Management Group?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No this is something...
Hon. Walt Lastewka: What was the group called in 1993 then?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: The Unity Fund-which I think has been mentioned by the Minister of Finance in his last budget speech if I'm well informed-was, I should say, a bank account administered by PCO and the signature of the Prime Minister was a necessity to cash any money from that source. That's something that may be different from what you are talking about.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Dingwall talked about putting a new policy in place for advertising and it was to be implemented by the Public Works and Government Services. He mentioned yesterday, if I remember correctly-and you can correct me, Mr. Chairman-that it was the first time that there were guidelines in Canada and even in provincial governments.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think you're correct in saying that Mr. Dingwall said that it was the first time that the rules had been brought in, and he brought them in.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: What you are saying is you were not involved with the guidelines and it was done...
The Chair: At Public Works, or at PCO, but not us. The Prime Minister's Office was not concerned with the specific file you referred to.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: When you had discussion by phone or a visit to your office with Mr. Guité did you talk about guidelines that were being used? Was there any discussion on procedures?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not that I can recall.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: So there was no discussion between you and Mr. Guité on the implementing of the Sponsorship Program.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: It was on the results of the Sponsorship Program.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes. You know the program was administered not by us, but was administered by Public Works. We were not involved in that as I mentioned earlier.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, it's your turn again; eight minutes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.
It's my lucky day, three times.
Mr. Chairperson, I just think we should remember why we're here. I know Mr. Mills would like to always downplay the significance of the events we're dealing with, but the Auditor General-
* (1515) 
Mr. Dennis Mills: -Point of order. Did you say, downplay the importance of this?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Mills, we are entitled to chose our words carefully in this house and if Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to talk about downplaying she may continue to do so.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just say, Mr. Chairperson, that whenever Mr. Mills talks I have to stop and ask myself if this is real and if we are really dealing with something because I get the feeling it's a figment of my imagination.
The Chair: I can assure you it is not, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. This is a very serious issue.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It is a serious issue and so I would like to ask Mr. Pelletier, since he said he didn't really know of problems back then, if he knew then what he knows now from the Auditor General's report, would he have done anything different in direction to ministers and reports to the Prime Minister, or would he also have said it should be left to the PCO.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Madam, when I had any doubts about the program, and it happened when I reported to the Prime Minister that there were rumours, I think we reacted the responsible way. This indicates that if I had known more, I would have done more, but the only time when there were some rumours about possible problems in the delivery of the program, I reported to the Prime Minister and acted the way he asked me to do. This is the proof of the pudding, I think.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate that.
You've really emphasized today the line between the PMO and the PCO, as if there is a wall almost between them, yet if you check the Internet these days-and I don't think this has been changed since the new Prime Minister came into office-it says, and I quote from the PCO's site: 
The PMO works closely with the Privy Council Office. Together these two organizations provide advice and support from different perspectives on the issues of daily concern to the Prime Minister. 
I guess I could table my BlackBerry, Mr. Chairperson, but I did want to make the point that I don't think, in terms of the way this place operates and the way we understand the different rules in the Prime Minister's Office vis à vis the PCO that in fact one can actually separate in the way you've done, it would appear, to your convenience today. 
I come back to that point because we're trying to understand, and this is where the political does come into play. Again, Dennis Mills says "Why are we talking about politics?" but in fact, the present Prime Minister has said this is a major-and I think he used the word-scandal. We have to get to the bottom of it. It's horrible, he said, and he tried to dump it on public servants. Nobody believed him. It was like he was reading a fairy tale and it's just not credible. We are trying to--it's just no one believes this was single-handedly masterminded by one or two public servants, Mr. Guité and whoever. We know there has to be some political involvement, and you're obviously the person who can shed some light on that.
I want to ask you a few questions. 
As chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office, you would have chaired regular meetings of minister's political staff, right? You said you didn't have chiefs of staff in minister's offices but you had executive assistants.
The Chair: You've asked the question, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Let Mr. Pelletier answer.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I chair some meetings, on a very irregular basis on an irregular calendar, of executive assistants to ministers. I chair a few to give them I should say the direction that the government had taken in some areas. Yes, I did that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate that.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: But would you do me a favour, Madam?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Would you read again what it said about PMO?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure I will, as soon as I finish my question so that I don't lose that--
The Chair: You can table the document that you're reading.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I could table it. It's on my BlackBerry, so it's a little hard to, but it's right off the PCO's site and I can get that copied and circulated to the committee, but I would be glad to repeat that in one minute or two minutes.
I wanted to know, in terms of meetings with political staff, however irregularly you may have met, it would be at these meetings presumably that some of the widespread rumours you were hearing about the sponsorship program might have been discussed.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: The sponsorship program, Madam, was never discussed at these meetings. Never.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: They were never discussed. Okay.
Was the sponsorship program ever discussed, period, in terms of political staff, not the rumours or--
* (1520) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It was discussed inside the PMO with the senior staff who had to know what was going on with the programs because I had senior staff in the morning. I had somebody from research and policy from the political desk, the communications department, the operations department, my executive assistant. It was the daily meeting we had so that the cross-information would flow from one to another so that, I should say, the end result of our overall team would be of better quality. I'm sure that we informed these people about the program and what was happening etc., and if you were the question desk and you got some requests, you have to proceed that way to put it in the hands, etc., yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: 
I appreciate that there's always going to be some flow of staff between the political level and the bureaucracy. In the case of the sponsorship file, it seems rather an interesting phenomenon, in terms of the political staff, like Pierre Tremblay, and Isabelle Roy, moving directly from Mr. Gagliano's office, as political staff, into one of a small group of 14 people in terms of the sponsorship program.
Could it be that--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Inside Public Works.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Inside Public Works, but inside that group, unto its own, that had reporting relations directly to the minister, so could it be that, in fact, it was a case of the political overtaking the bureaucratic or the public servant role in terms of the sponsorship program, so you accomplished your means that way, without having to be directly controlling and pushing and pulling, in terms of political buttons. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It's a bit difficult to understand what you have in mind...
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a revolving door between the political staff and the...
Mr. Jean Pelletier: What is happening inside the Department of Public Works; ask anybody else to answer that question; it was not my responsibility and I don't know.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But you're in charge of political staff, right? On a point of order, that at least we know that Mr. Pelletier is responsible for political staff, so I would hope, Mr. Chairperson, that you would seek an answer, vis a vis, any questions pertaining to that function, because that is within his jurisdiction, and he cannot claim to be outside of his mandate as chief of staff in the prime minister's office.
The Chair: Before I get to you Mr. Lastewka, I pointed out earlier, and Mr. Pelletier answered, that he did not know, and I pointed it out earlier that just because it's not within his domain, it doesn't mean to say he can't answer, but he did answer saying he didn't know.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I want to get a clarification on the question and the answer, because what I understood Mr. Pelletier to say is that he met with the chiefs of staff of ministers. What Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis said is that Mr. Pelletier was responsible for chiefs of staff of the ministers. That's what I heard. Could I get that clarified. What was the question and could we hear the answer.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm certainly not suggesting that Mr. Pelletier was responsible for all the minister's political staff, but he had an important liaison role with political staff, and therefore, would have something to do with or say about, the movement of political staff from Mr. Gagliano's office into the communications office of the public service department.
The Chair: Mr. Pelletier, did you have any say in the movement of political staff from one office to another?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: We usually applied...I said usually, that was the rule...the executive assistant to a minister would be appointed only if the prime minister was in agreement and if the minister was in agreement, a dual consent, and if one or the other was not happy, somebody else would be selected. 
As far as the rest of the staff in the ministerial office, their names were communicated through the PMO. There was the normal security check that was done and if there was a problem, I would call, or the minister, or the executive assistant, to discuss a particular case, but if nothing rose, it was accepted. That was the rule.
* (1525) 
The Chair: Mr. Jordan, you had a point of clarification?
Hon. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering, is what Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis is referring to, if I'm getting it right, is an exempt staff or EA to a minister then bumping into to a department. I think that's guided by the collective agreement. I'm wondering if--
The Chair: I don't think that's what Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis was...I think we'll leave that alone, because Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis and Mr. Pelletier have answered that in fairly significant depth. We're not talking about EA's--
Hon. Joe Jordan: She was talking about Pierre Tremblay going into Guité's job, wasn't she?
The Chair: Was that your point, Madam Wasylycia-Leis?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: 
My point is, you have political staff--which falls under the rough umbrella of the Chief of Staff in the PMO--moving from political jobs, particularly in Mr. Gagliano's office--two of them--going into the very group that is at the heart of this whole sponsorship scandal and at a time when, in fact, Mr. Gagliano testified before us that he was forced into certain staffing positions. So it begs the question, who forced him and was this not directed by the PMO Chief of Staff. 
The Chair: My question is, Mr. Pelletier, was it directed by you in the PMO?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: What?
The Chair: The fact that Mr. Tremblay--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I'm a bit confused. 
The Chair: Okay, well I think we're all a little confused here, but Mr. Tremblay moved from the EA, executive assistant of Mr. Gagliano into the public service as the Executive Director in charge of the sponsorship program, which was a public service position. As you know, senior staff can, without open competition, move into the public service. 
Now, Madam Wasylycia-Leis is saying that Mr. Gagliano said, "I couldn't stop it. I was ordered to do it". So who transferred Mr. Tremblay to the public service, or did he transfer himself?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, we may have been consulted if we had objections to this happening but we were certainly not the ones to decide about somebody entering the public service. 
The Chair: Okay, thank you. 
Just for everybody's edification, the blues are now available from 9:00 o'clock this morning until the lunchtime break. I have only three copies but they are available on the website of... Do you want to just mention it? They are available on what website? 
The Clerk of the Committee: The blues are available on the internal Intraparl website, the unedited transcript. 
The Chair: The transcripts from this morning are available on the website. 
Mr. Dennis Mills: What is the website?
The Chair: The website is?
The Clerk: It's the Intraparl, Mr. Mills. 
Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes, but where do you go after that?
The Clerk: Onto Committee Proceedings. 
Mr. Dennis Mills: Now to the Clerk, a clarification. Are the list of the 1987 projects on the site?
The Chair: No, I just made an information announcement, Mr. Mills. 
Mr. Dennis Mills: But that's pretty important information. 
The Chair: We're not going to go off about an examination of the website. 
We have half-an-hour left. We're going to go four minutes a round. 
Mr. Pelletier. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I had asked this honourable lady to read what she had said and she was supposed to do it. Would you please give me the favour?
The Chair: Yes, can you read what you have there, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a rather lengthy piece but I'll just read the excerpt that I--
Mr. Jean Pelletier: The PMO. Read the PMO. 
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. 
It also works closely with the Privy Council Office. Together, these two organizations provide advice and support from different perspectives on the issues of daily concern to the Prime Minister. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Thank you very much. 
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're welcome. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think it confirms what I told you already. 
The Chair: With the emphasis on "daily", so Mr.--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think it confirms what I've been--
The Chair: Okay, thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. You have this capacity to be heard beyond the power of the NDP. 
Mr. MacKay, four minutes. 
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 
Mr. Pelletier, I wanted to ask you about Quebec ministers' breakfast meetings. Are you aware, at any time, of regular meetings that took place with Quebec ministers that were apparently taking place in an informal capacity where discussions--I'm assuming, and I don't want to assume anything, but I'm assuming there would be discussions--over the political atmosphere in Quebec, including the threat of separatism there. 
Are you aware of any of those meetings, or did you ever attend them?
·* (1530) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Oh, yes, I attended all of these meetings on a regular basis, Mr. Member. 
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, and would you therefore be aware of discussions over political strategy over how to combat this political scourge in Quebec separatism. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: There's no doubt that there was exchange of views between ministers about that, yes. 
Mr. Peter MacKay: And therefore I suggest to you that sponsorship would have been very much a subject of debate as to this issue of how we raise the profile of Canada in Quebec--the billboards, the Canada logo--the strategy, as you put it, to raise the profile and to counteract some of the Quebec provincial government's efforts to put Quebec first. 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: It might have been mentioned but I have no recollection of really serious and in-depth discussion about that program. 
Mr. Peter MacKay: 
So never any detail over cost.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Actually when the overall subject was discussed, it was more about well organizing the presence of Quebec federal ministers in the province on regular tours and on regular presence, etc., systematically.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Those Quebec ministers would include the then finance minister, current Prime Minister as well. Would he have been present at these breakfast meetings?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: They were all invited. They were not always all present because of their ministerial duties. They sometimes had to be out of the capital. All Quebec ministers were invited to the Tuesday morning breakfast, I think.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Tuesday morning breakfast. You said you attended regularly.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Yes, but not the whole meeting because it took place, if I remember--it was before cabinet--from 8 to 10, and I would skip out at 9:20 to see the Prime Minister at 9:30 before cabinet would begin.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Pelletier, was Mr. Martin present for any of those breakfast meetings?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: He was present sometimes, surely. Was he at all meetings, I don't know.
Mr. Peter MacKay: More often than not?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I didn't notice.
Mr. Peter MacKay: It was a regular meeting. Was he there regularly or not?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Most of the time I think he was there.
Mr. Peter MacKay: When these discussions would take place, would you relay that information to the then Prime Minister, your boss?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: If there was something special, I would. If there was nothing special, I would say, "nothing special this morning, sir, at the Quebec ministers meeting".
Mr. Peter MacKay: What do you say, Mr. Pelletier, to the allegation that what was happening was Quebec advertising firms that had Liberal connections were being given the bulk of the business around this sponsorship program, and some of those same said firms were making substantive political donations to the Liberal party?
This certainly smacks of political influence, and it certainly gives the very real appearance of those firms being rewarded for their contribution by virtue of receiving this work through the sponsorship program. That is very much the crux of the issue here. It's a matter of public record that those firms that got the work also made considerable donations to the Liberal party.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Sir, I didn't know about any of the firms when it happened. We knew about the firms afterwards. When it was said by the internal audit that there was nothing criminal and that it was administrative and management problems, we had no reason--anyway, I had personally no reason, even if it was a short time because after I left for my surgery, but I had no....
Mr. Peter MacKay: Some of those firms are under investigation now, you would admit that.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I think that the former Prime Minister was very clear. If somebody has not acted properly and in all public responsibility in that program, let the police find out, let the prosecutors do their job...and the due process of justice to end the file. I think that was a very responsible position.
I'm absolutely
* (1535) 
[Français]
solidaire de cette position. On n'est pas pour défendre n'importe qui, qui aurait abusé de façon incorrecte et peut-être criminelle des fonds publics.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.
Monsieur Proulx, s'il vous plaît. Quatre minutes.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: But due process.
[Français]
M. Marcel Proulx: Monsieur Pelletier, c'est sûrement ma dernière chance de vous poser quelques questions ici, cet après-midi. J'aimerais juste attacher quelques ficelles. De juillet 1991 à l'élection de 1993, vous étiez au bureau de M. Chrétien, qui était le Bureau du chef de l'opposition à ce moment. Ce matin, je vous ai posé la question sur des rapports dans les médias au sujet des mauvaises habitudes de gestion de M. Guité et vous m'avez dit que vous n'étiez pas au courant. À l'époque, est-ce qu'il y avait quelqu'un qui faisait du monitoring des médias ou qui aurait pu faire le monitoring des médias, à cette époque-là, au Bureau du chef de l'opposition?
M. Jean Pelletier: Entre 1991 et 1993?
M. Marcel Proulx: Voilà.
M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne sais pas, il y avait le directeur des communications qui avait une équipe. Le directeur des communications était Peter Donello à ce moment-là. Je n'ai rien entendu parler concernant M. Guité pendant toute ces périodes. Je répète ce que je vous ai dit plus tôt, je n'ai rien entendu parler. Est-ce que d'autres dans mon bureau ont entendu parler de cela? Je ne le sais pas.
M. Marcel Proulx: Il y a eu des articles, monsieur Pelletier, qui ont été déposé au comité, mais vous ne pouvez pas être tenu de connaître ou de lire tous les articles. 
Quand on fait la différence entre le cabinet du premier ministre et le Bureau du Conseil privé, on s'entend, dans le jargon gouvernemental, que le Bureau du Conseil privé, PCO, est effectivement le ministère du premier ministre.
M. Jean Pelletier: Voilà.
M. Marcel Proulx: Dans tout cabinet de ministres, il y a un adjoint exécutif et dans le cas du premier ministre, c'était vous qui étiez directeur de son cabinet. Est-ce qu'il y avait quelqu'un qui jouait le rôle d'adjoint exécutif pour le ministère qui s'appelait le Bureau du Conseil privé?
* (1540) 
M. Jean Pelletier: Non. La relation entre le bureau du premier ministre et le Conseil privé s'articulait comme cela : j'avais un contact direct avec le greffier du Conseil privé. D'ailleurs, normalement, on se rencontrait tous les matins dans le bureau du premier ministre, à 9 h 30 et on se parlait au téléphone le nombre de fois nécessaires. Après cela, évidemment, notre directrice de Policy and Research était en liaison avec les secrétariats des comités du cabinets qui s'occupaient ou des dossiers économiques, où des dossiers sociaux.
Après cela, notre service des communications était en contact avec le service des communications de PCO. Chacun des bureaux étaient en communication avec son équivalent à PCO et il y avait chaque semaine des rencontres entre les deux pour que le travail coordonné se fasse. Comme je vous l'ai expliqué, chacun restait dans son domaine; le domaine politique pour nous, le domaine administratif et législatif pour les autres. C'est comme cela que ça marchait.
M. Marcel Proulx: Si vous me le permettez, monsieur Pelletier, s'il y avait eu une crise administrative ou s'il y avait eu une panique au niveau administratif du ministère du Conseil privé, les gens ne seraient pas allés à un de ces directeurs ou directrices-là, mais plutôt ils seraient allés au greffier ou à la greffière du Conseil privé.
M. Jean Pelletier: Monsieur, cela aurait monté vers le haut et à ce moment-là, si cela n'aurait pas été résolu à ce niveau-là et que cela aurait dû monter plus haut, le greffier en aurait parlé directement au premier ministre. 
M. Marcel Proulx: À 9 h 30 le matin en votre présence.
Un petit point que je veux clarifier dans tête, une dernière question. Dans vos rencontres avec M. Guité et potentiellement M. Tremblay, ainsi qu'à une autre époque avec M. Tremblay et potentiellement M. Bard, vous regardiez les listes, qu'ils voulaient bien vous montrer, de différentes demandes et vous nous avez dit tantôt, en réponse, je pense à M. Mackay, avec une liste de montants correspondants. 
M. Jean Pelletier: Les montants demandés.
M. Marcel Proulx: Les montants demandés. Merci, c'est ce que je voulais clarifier. Il a été sorti par la vérificatrice générale, le fait que dans certains cas, il y a des montants, qui ont été attribués avec des commandites, qui étaient le double ou plus que le montant originalement demandé. Aviez-vous connaissance de cela? Est-ce que c'était discuté autour de votre table ou c'est une initiative que M. Guité et son équipe prenait?
M. Jean Pelletier: En toute vérité, je n'ai aucun souvenir de cela.
M. Marcel Proulx: Merci.
Merci, monsieur le président.
[English]
The Chair: Madam Jennings, do you have a point of order?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: 
Yes, I do. It concerns a ruling that you made previously to some objections that I had made. Now that I have the transcript in front of me, I think that I'm in a position to show that, in fact, the ruling was incorrect. It regards to testimony that was given. It's in the section from 11:25 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., and it regards Mr. MacKay's questioning of the witness and I can read out what it says.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No, I knew Mr. Lafleur socially like that. He has a son who I know well, and he was very concerned about his son at a certain time, and we discussed that. 


Mr. MacKay: So when you said, you didn't know him professionally... 


Mr. Jean Pelletier: I didn't discuss any contract with Mr. Lafleur. 


Mr. Peter MacKay: You never discussed it? When you said you knew him, you didn't know him professionally, you knew him unprofessionally. Is that what you meant, unprofessionally? Okay. When you said at one point in your testimony previous that you would talk to the janitor if it would help the country, would you talk to the janitor if you thought he was bilking the government of $100 million, would you talk to him then? Probably, eh? 


Mr. Pelletier: When I said I would see the janitor... 
Mr. Pelletier never says, he never agrees he knew anybody unprofessionally. Then when we come further down, Mr. MacKay is questioning again, and he says,
Mr. MacKay: None, whatsoever, but my question to you sir, was, did you every have anything to do with the hiring practices? 

This goes, I would suggest, to credibility. There's a suggestion that you met with Mr. Boudoin, and a number of others, including Jean Lafleur, who you had an unprofessional-personal relationship with, according to you. 

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, I wouldn't call it unprofessional. Is it unprofessional? Is it unprofessional? Were those his words? 

Mr. MacKay: That's what he said. Those were his words. 

Mr. MacKay lead, you, the chair, into error. Mr. Pelletier never, according to the transcript, which confirms my memory of his testimony, never used the term unprofessional, or even agree with Mr. MacKay's qualification of his relationship.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Jennings. You may recall that I pointed out that Mr. Pelletier did clarify, later on, that the relationship that he had was a social relationship; it was not a professional relationship, and as I pointed out, that I did take unction at the word "unprofessional," and Mr. MacKay did suggest that it was Mr. Pelletier's word, however, I did not agree with allowing the word "unprofessional" in the room. I pointed that out. 
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My point of order...
The Chair: The point, I think is that--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I haven't even made my point of order. 
The Chair: What is your point of order, Madam Jennings?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My point of order, sir, is that I think it's serious behaviour or conduct on the part of a member who mischaracterizes the testimony of a witness and induces the chair into error by putting words in a witnesses mouth. I think that that's quite serious. It goes to the very credibility of the work of this committee. I think it behooves members not to mischaracterize testimony; not to misinform on testimony.
The Chair: Yes, yes. We agree, Madam Jennings. I did clarify and Mr. Pelletier did clarify that it was a social relationship, it wasn't a professional relationship, it wasn't an unprofessional relationship.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's Mr. MacKay's conduct in mischaracterizing--
The Chair: Madam Jennings, you have raised a ruling of the chair pertaining to Mr. MacKay. So we are now going to move to Mr. Thibault for four minutes.
* (1545) 
[Français]
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Merci, monsieur le président.
[English]
Mr. Pelletier, again, Mr. MacKay raised a point that I think is very important, and something that has been created a little bit out there that these firms were Liberal-friendly firms. I don't know; I hear from different people, different points of view; some tell me that they were firms that were friendly to the progress of the Conservative Party when they were in power. Firms that may have had links with other parties, but that in all cases, they were, I think we heard in testimony, federal-friendly firms. Do you have any information on those points; is there any way you could assist us?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Not at all. I'm sorry, I don't know these firms. 
Hon. Robert Thibault: 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: No.
Hon. Robert Thibault: You don't know these firms, and you have never participated in any discussion that would characterize their political leanings?
Thank you.
[Français]
Vous avez également mentionné la question que le gouvernement du Québec de l'époque aurait utilisé les agences à leur disposition, comme vous l'avez mentionné, Loto Québec, Hydro Québec, pour faire la promotion du drapeau du gouvernement du Québec et le du peuple québécois dans leur province. Vous ne voulez certainement pas nous faire croire que ce serait pour se plier à leur volonté politique ou encourager les gens à voter contre cette grande nation qu'est le Canada.
[English]
The Chair: political, Mr. Pelletier.
Hon. Robert Thibault: No, never.
[Français]
M. Jean Pelletier: Je ne comprends pas exactement votre question, monsieur le député.
Par exemple, il y a eu à un moment donné, au Québec, une campagne sur la ceinture de sécurité dans les voitures. Alors, on s'attache au Québec. Regardez la subtilité de cela. C'était intelligent sur le plan de la subtilité publicitaire, mais cela comporte un message qui est plus qu'une ceinture dans une voiture. Alors, il y avait toute sorte d'initiatives qui étaient prises par le gouvernement du Québec, à travers la publicité de ses services ou de ses instructions ou à travers les fonds de Loto Québec ou d'Hydro Québec. À ce moment-là, les gens ont dit: « C'est habile, il faut le reconnaître ». Je le reconnais volontiers, c'était habile et cela stimulait le sentiment d'appartenance des gens au Québec, cela stimulait leur fierté. Mais on n'avait pas la contrepartie pour stimuler la présence du Canada et la fierté d'être Canadien. Ce n'était pas très visible au Québec. Alors, c'était une des raisons pour lesquelles le programme a été mis sur pied.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Pensez-vous qu'on a ressenti au niveau de la Fonction publique ou du gouvernement, des administrateurs politiques et non politiques fédéraux un sens d'urgence assez important qu'on aurait peut-être pu ignorer les contrôles réguliers et qu'on aurait dû avoir vis-à-vis les directives du Conseil du Trésor ou la Loi sur la fonction publique ou l'administration publique?
M. Jean Pelletier: Je pense que le gouvernement comme tel, le premier ministre et le Bureau du premier ministre en particulier, a tout le moins, n'a jamais souhaité cela, tout au contraire et si cela s'est fait, cela s'est fait hors de notre connaissance.
L'hon. Robert Thibault: Les directives étaient toujours de suivre...
M. Jean Pelletier: Si vous regardez la paperasse, il y avait assez de papiers, mais vous verrez toujours que toutes les appropriations de fonds etc. c'était toujours en accord avec la Loi de l'administration financière et les directives du Conseil du Trésor.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thibault.
I have a question, myself. I have a letter to read. We don't have time for another round, so I may just take the odd question from the odd individual to try and balance it out if there are such questions.
Mr. Pelletier, you were the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, and, as you say, in charge of the Prime Minister's office, the political wing, not the PCO, the bureaucratic administrative wing of government. It's a matter of record for 10 years, during Mr. Chrétien's tenure as a Prime Minister, that anytime a cabinet minister was under attack by the opposition, that he, or she, would be defended at great length by the Prime Minister, with one exception. That was in January, 2002, when the first story appeared in the newspapers about potential contracts and no value having been received for them. Within a couple of days, Mr. Gagliano had resigned and was off to Denmark as our ambassador, quite contrary to the normal position of the Prime Minister. Did you discuss the resignation of Mr. Gagliano with the Prime Minister? Did you give him any political advice? Were you aware of any rationale why he should resign, and why he should be appointed as our ambassador to Denmark? Remember, this is totally out of context with everything else that a Prime Minister had done on defending cabinet ministers. What advice did you give the Prime Minister about accepting the resignation, defending Mr. Gagliano? Remember, the House wasn't even in session at that time. There wasn't even a question from the opposition because the House wasn't sitting. All of a sudden, Mr. Gagliano was gone. 
* (1550) 
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I regret to inform you that I had left Ottawa since six months, so I had no contact with the Prime MInister any longer. If you look at your calendar, you will see that, unfortunately, the question has no ground to be asked. 
I would say that it's all very good to say that Mr. Gagliano was the only one to be dismissed, as you to say.
The Chair: No, I didn't say "dismissed".
Mr. Jean Pelletier: --was removed--but I remember a former Minister of Defence, who had to resign, by the name of Mr. Collenette. I know that my former Mayor of Toronto had also to resign. So I think that Mr. Chrétien defended his people when he thought they should be defended and acted differently when he thought that it had to be done differently.
The Chair: So he must have "thought differently" in Mr. Gagliano's case, then, because he defended Mr. Collenette for a long, long time.
Mr. Jean Pelletier: I don't know. I am able to comment on facts that took place when I was here. I don't think I should comment on facts on which I had no evidence of anything, because I was away since six months.
The Chair: Okay. I'm going to read a letter from the law clerk addressed to Mr. Jim Judd, the secretary of the Treasury Board, in his response to the letter that we received from the Treasury Board that I tabled yesterday, "Re: Treasury Board Policy on Indemnification and Legal Assistance for Crown Servants":
Thank you for your letter of March 25, 2004, enclosing the above noted policy. 

Pleased be advised that I have been instructed by the public accounts committee to respond to your letter to indicate that, in the view of the committee, the policy does not fully address the concerns underlying the statements of March 11, 2004, to which your letter refers. 

It must be noted here that the committee is making an inquiry into government or departmental operations arising from the Auditor General's Report of November 2003 relating to the Sponsorship Program that was run out of the Department of Public Works. 

Briefly described, the Auditor General found numerous shortcomings in the operations of this program. For this reason, the government or the Department of Public Works might have an interest in this inquiry that it would want to defend. This would seem to present a conflict of interest under the above-noted policy such that a government lawyer ought not to have private consultations with a public servant who has been, or might yet be, called as a witness before the committee. The committee must be assured that public servants appearing before the committee are free to testify fully and truthfully to matters within their knowledge without constraint and have not been subject to any interference, whether explicit or implicit. 

I do not mean to suggest that there has been any attempt to improperly influence a public servant scheduled to testify before the committee. There is no evidence of this. However, the incident discussed on March 11 raises the possibility of such interference. The purpose of this letter is to make clear to you, and through you to other government officials, that, in the view of the committee, there must not only be no interference, but also, as much as possible, no appearance of any possible interference. 

I trust this adequately explains the view of the committee on the application of the above-noted Treasury Board policy. 
"Yours truly, R.R. Walsh", with a copy to me, as the chair of the committee.
So that's tabled and public knowledge. 
We're at five to four and I think we'll bring it to an end.
Mr. Pelletier, you didn't have an opening statement. Do you have a closing statement?
Mr. Jean Pelletier: Thank you for receiving me.
The Chair: You're welcome.
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.
 

 
 

Check out these related links:

 Public Accounts Sponsorship Hearings 

© PoliticsWatch 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PoliticsWatch content, including by framing, copying, linking or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Public Interests Research and Communications Inc. PoliticsWatch is registered trademark of PIRCINC.