PACC Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 25, 2004
| ¿ | 0910 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)) |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons) |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay (As Individual) |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1000 |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1005 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1010 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| À | 1015 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1020 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1025 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1030 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1035 |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1040 |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings) |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings) |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1045 |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| À | 1050 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
| À | 1055 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
| Á | 1100 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
| Á | 1105 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC) |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
| Á | 1110 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Á | 1125 |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
| Á | 1140 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Huguette Tremblay |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Â | 1210 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
| Â | 1215 |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
| Â | 1220 |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Â | 1225 |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Monique Guay |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1230 |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
| Â | 1235 |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Â | 1240 |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Â | 1245 |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1250 |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Levine (Forensic Auditor, KPMG) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Mr. Paul Levine |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1255 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, March 25, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0910)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good morning, everybody.
The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), are 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 witnesses today are Ms. Huguette Tremblay, from nine o'clock to eleven o'clock, as an individual; and from eleven o'clock to one o'clock the Honourable Diane Marleau, MP for Sudbury.
Mr. Murphy has given me an indication that he has a point of order.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The point of order I'm going to make is very serious. It involves the incidents that occurred in this committee yesterday.
Yesterday, certain allegations were made by a witness about a payment to Mr. Villeneuve of $12 million, and allegations were made that a company in Quebec was dealing in drugs. There was a very weak evidentiary foundation, and the evidence was based solely on hearsay evidence given from a third party.
I would have thought that the members of this committee would have ignored the evidence and the media would have ignored the evidence, until we had a stronger evidentiary foundation. I'm disappointed to see that is not the case.
Mr. Chairman, I'm extremely disappointed in your behaviour. I would have thought you would have cautioned the members of the committee, or maybe Mr. Walsh would have cautioned the members of the committee, but at the very first opportunity, you rushed from your chair to a media scrum and told the media--and I am summarizing, I didn't write it down--the public would be surprised to learn that Mr. Villeneuve received $12 million and that we're now into some sort of drug investigation. What you did, Mr. Chairman, was give credibility to the statements that were made earlier that day by the witness.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you that your job is as the impartial chair of the committee. You're the spokesman of this committee. Your job is to maintain order, maintain decorum, decide questions of privilege, and speak for the committee on certain issues. What you risk doing, Mr. Chairman, is turning this committee into a three-ring circus. You're putting politics over process and you think you've something to gain by making these statements out in the hall.
As we go forward in life, all a person has is their reputation. In a year or two everyone's going to forget the sponsorship scandal. In ten years people are going to forget who the member of Parliament for St. Albert was. But what you're allowing to be done, Mr. Chairman, is to have the innocent reputations of individuals, Canadian citizens, destroyed by this committee. I don't know Mr. Villeneuve, I don't know Mr. Brault, and you may be right, they may be involved in drug dealings, and Mr. Villeneuve may have received the $12 million, but I think that should have been allowed to come forward with a stronger evidentiary basis.
Mr. Chairman, you've allowed this committee and Parliament to become an area of disrepute.
And Mr. Walsh, I urge you to instruct us on this whole issue of parliamentary privilege. Members on both sides of the House I don't think are aware. Certain people--and I'm not talking about only Conservatives, but Liberals too--think anything can be said about anybody in these halls, with the defence of parliamentary privilege. I urge you and all members to read Marleau and Montpetit, pages 74 to 78, and some of the rulings by Speaker Fraser. This is not the case, colleagues.
Perhaps I'm taking too much time, Mr. Chairman, but I want to quote from page 77 of Marleau and Montpetit:
| There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege extends--Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other. These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited. Absolute privilege ensures that those performing their legitimate functions in these vital institutions of Government shall not be exposed to the possibility of legal action. This is necessary in the national interest and has been considered necessary under our democratic system for hundreds of years. It allows our judicial system and our parliamentary system to operate free of any hindrance. |
| Such privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this Place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential of abuse. |
That abuse, colleagues, is the abuse that took place in these halls yesterday.
Also, Mr. Walsh, I urge you to instruct the chair, and perhaps other members of the committee, on the law of libel. I've been through these cases. I know the pain; I have the scars to prove it. There is no more difficult case for a lawyer than to go into court and defend someone in a libel case, because you have to prove every fact, every connotation, and if you can't prove it by cogent evidence, you're going to be found guilty. I would be surprised if there are not lawsuits flying out of what happened in these halls yesterday, and, Mr. Chair, I would be surprised if you're not a defendant. There are lawyers licking their lips today.
¿ (0915)
So, Mr. Chair, I urge you to put politics aside. I urge you to focus on what this committee is supposed to be doing. I urge you to try to deal with the relevant issues.
Earlier this week you made the statement that your goal was to let the media play out. I was very disappointed in that, and I was extremely disappointed in the actions that took place yesterday.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I speak for all the government members on this side when I say that we want to totally, absolutely, utterly disassociate ourselves from the allegations that were made yesterday, the allegations you made out in the hall. On behalf of all of us, I apologize to Mr. Villeneuve and the other people involved with Groupaction for the allegations that were made with no evidentiary foundation. We want to totally disassociate ourselves from that behaviour.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): I have a few comments as well arising out of Mr. Murphy's statements. I didn't have the opportunity to hear your comments, Mr. Chair, and I only hope that Mr. Murphy's comments today haven't simply aggravated the situation. I know it's an important issue and I know that Mr. Murphy is bringing this forward in good faith, but even given the best of intentions, sometimes the type of comment Mr. Murphy has made now will simply aggravate the situation.
I just want to state for the record, Mr. Chair, that I wasn't present for most of the hearing yesterday, but I caught much of the testimony over the media, in my office. As a former lawyer, I don't find the two main allegations that were made particularly relevant to our hearings here today, the $12 million and the drug-ring allegations. They're simply not relevant, and that's the nature of the comments I made to the media when they approached me this morning. I can assure this committee that unless Ms. Bédard's testimony is corroborated in a material respect, I do not intend to give those two allegations any weight. We need to focus on what is relevant.
At the same time, Mr. Chair, I want to guard against any suggestion that this committee will be chilled by the threat of lawsuits. I know there are lawyers out there licking their lips and their chops; that's what lawyers basically do. I, frankly, will not be intimidated by the legal system; we're here to find out the truth.
Sometimes in the course of evidence, whether it's in a judicial proceeding or whether here in the legislature, outrageous things are said. I'm not suggesting this was outrageous; I'm just saying I don't see any need to give it any weight at this time because I don't think it's been corroborated in any material respect. But I won't be intimidated.
Now, the last comment I want to make is a note that the chairman is a member of the opposition. I can tell you that I've sat on many committees where the chair has been a government member and I have felt very disappointed at the comments and the rulings the chairperson has made. The chairperson has gone out and made certain assurances, for example, to my constituents and then come along and done exactly the opposite thing.
It's hard to divorce politics from this kind of proceeding, but I take very seriously what Mr. Murphy has said and I think it's good advice, generally speaking, for all members here. We are dealing with people's lives; we are dealing with reputations.
So, just with those comments and cautions, I would suggest that we proceed with today's proceedings.
I don't know if Mr. Walsh has anything else to add, but I want to just thank Mr. Murphy for bringing the matter to our attention, and maybe we can proceed.
¿ (0920)
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, s'il vous plaît.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't want to prolong the debate unduly, but I have to say that there is a criminal law principle that one has to take the victim in the state he or she is in. I think we can draw an analogy with our witnesses. We heard a witness make certain allegations, and she was fully entitled to do so. I think it's the role of the committee in its search for the truth, to sort out what is relevant. I think that Mr. Walsh—it's too bad he's not listening to me—the senior law clerk, can confirm that before a parliamentary committee, the testimony of witnesses is privileged, and Ms. Tremblay's counsel surely explained that to her. I am confident that yesterday's witness, Ms. Bédard, shouldn't be intimidated by threats of lawsuits or by what we're going to hear today. The testimony of witnesses appearing before a committee is fully privileged. So no action of any kind can be taken against them for what they say here, on the committee floor.
I, in turn, would like to say that I'd like us to move as quickly as possible to the next witness.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.
Mr. Walsh, please.
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): I have a couple of comments in response to Mr. Murphy's comments.
First of all, let me readily agree with other members that the citation Mr. Murphy provided to the committee from Marleau and Montpetit is one that ought to be borne in mind. It seems to me that while complete immunity is enjoyed by members of this committee and its witnesses from any legal proceedings flowing from matters stated in the course of the committee proceedings, it is also the case that this could have repercussions on third parties outside this room. Members ought to act responsibly, as I think Speaker Fraser said in the passage Mr. Murphy has quoted to us.
I might need to go back and review the testimony of yesterday by reading the blues, but my recollection is that Madam Bédard did not make any allegations regarding the company that has been discussed--and I won't repeat it for the nature of the comment made--nor about that individual. What she did was report to the committee statements that were made to her.
Arguably--I've not examined her testimony closely--these statements were relevant to her testimony, at least in her judgment, to explain where she was coming from in terms of her apprehensions about some of the experiences she had. Again, in fairness to the witness, she was reporting statements made to her, and she did not attest to the veracity of those statements.
The problem is that neither staff certainly nor the subcommittee on witnesses exercises a screening or censoring role with regard to witnesses. The committees are in the hands of witnesses when they appear, and they are at liberty to provide to the committee whatever they have to say on the matter that is the subject of the inquiry of the committee. Indeed, it is the wish of the committee, I understand, to have full and complete accounting from witnesses. That may from time to time run the risk that statements are made of a kind that reflect poorly on persons outside this room. We can only hope, as Mr. Murphy suggests, that members and witnesses will keep that in mind, act responsibly, and not cast unnecessary aspersions on third parties regarding matters pertaining to their reputations and integrity.
However, in this case I think the witness came with what she had to say, and in her judgment thought it was relevant, but she only testified to statements made to her by others. She did not make allegations herself, if my memory serves. I know that's a weak distinction in the minds of those who were spoken about, but it is the case, I believe.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Madam Phinney, I thought a one-party intervention by everybody would...but you have a short point.
¿ (0925)
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I want to make sure we're all very clear that anything stated at the witness screening meetings is not used outside, either at this meeting or anywhere else; that everything said at witness screening meetings is absolutely confidential, and we can't use that....
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Phinney.
I'd like to thank Mr. Murphy for his thoughtful presentation. I appreciate the points he has raised this morning. They are serious issues that this committee has to be aware of, not just on this issue, but at any time the committee is dealing with an investigation where people's reputations are at stake. As Mr. Murphy pointed out, if we have one thing in this world it is our reputations. They must be respected. As was pointed out, we do not in any way, shape, or form....
Mr. Walsh, did you have something to say?
Mr. Rob Walsh: Ms. Phinney made a comment, and it seemed to gain the acceptance of the committee, regarding the subcommittee and testimony it receives being confidential.
I draw to your attention that, if my memory serves me right, in yesterday's line of questioning, which was with a witness who had been interviewed by the subcommittee, I had the impression that some questions had the benefit of prior knowledge arising from the interview with the witness by the subcommittee. It's not that the member disclosed the testimony of the witness as given to the subcommittee, but I had the impression that those members of the committee who were on the subcommittee, or others from the same caucus on this committee, may have had the benefit of information from that subcommittee that assisted them in providing the questions to the witness.
I assume that is in keeping with the rules--or is it not in keeping? I think that point needs to be clarified.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh, for addressing that particular point.
It's very difficult to forget knowledge you are in command of. I personally made no notes whatsoever at the time of the confidential meeting with Madame Bédard and therefore didn't come forward with a line of questioning based on the in camera discussions. She made her statement. We had no advance knowledge of her statement. I was not aware of it and I will not comment on her statement versus what we heard in camera.
I don't want to belabour this, but let me finish, Madam Jennings.
I was talking about how I appreciated the thoughtful comments and intervention by Mr. Murphy. I was talking about how it is important that we respect that people's reputations must be appreciated and respected. While we may think that we have immunity from prosecution by what we say at this table, one's own credibility will rapidly disappear if one does not respect other people. Parliament is an institution, the highest institution in our land. If we can't act in accordance with propriety, then what kind of situation are we in?
Another point I want to make is that we're dealing with a serious investigation on a matter that has been brought to this committee. In my years of experience in Parliament I've come to appreciate that the responsibility of Parliament in a democratic world is to hold governments accountable. There are two kinds of governments in this world: there are dictatorships that can do whatever they want, and democratic governments that are constrained, and they are constrained and held accountable by the institution of Parliament, which in turn is accountable back to the electorate at election time.
We are dealing with a sensitive issue where Parliament is exercising that accountability over government. We are dealing with a deep issue, and I respect what Mr. Murphy has said. But the investigation has to go forward, as Mr. Toews has said, in order for Canada and Canadians around the world to demonstrate that our democracy works.
Madam Jennings, you may make a very brief intervention, because I am going to move on.
¿ (0930)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): My comment concerns statements that have been made by a person called before the witness committee. These statements are confidential. Then that individual testifies in public, and either all or part of the statement is information that was given to the subcommittee. In my view, in those instances that information is public.
For instance, a witness comes before the witness committee and says I was told this, or I saw X person. We cannot comment on that, those of us who were at the committee; it's completely confidential. But once the witness comes in public before this committee and makes that same statement, then in my view the seal of confidentiality on that is lifted.
The Chair: Absolutely, absolutely.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. I just wanted that clarification.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): I'd like to make a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: A point of clarification from Mr. Mills.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I wanted to bring you and the committee some good news.
On Monday the clerks will be receiving from Public Works the breakout of the first $65 million of production costs up to the year 2000. I think most members will be quite happy and surprised to see the qualitative work that's being done by the department.
Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. We'll look forward to receiving that.
Mr. Toews, very briefly.
Mr. Vic Toews: With respect to Mrs. Jennings' comments, we have to recall why the witnesses were in camera. It wasn't confidential information. The evidence was taken in camera. And certainly any divergence, in any material respect, between what was said in camera and what was said in public testimony can be commented upon.
The purpose of a witness being in camera is to ensure that those who have nothing to add won't be publicly identified, but once we determine that a witness has material evidence to present and is brought forward, then even those comments that a witness may have made in camera but may now be reluctant to give, or they give a different version.... I think that is fair comment.
The Chair: I will ask the law clerk to give us some direction on that, perhaps at the next meeting.
I'm going to move on. Let me see what I have here. I have a report from the full committee in camera, and we agreed that these were the priorities of the investigation--heads of crown corporations that are directly involved, the advertising agencies, people involved in the administration of the program, the whistle-blowers, ministers directly involved, industry professionals, other selected ministers, and grant recipients. We will draw our witnesses from these areas, with the priority given to the ones I mentioned first.
The next thing we have is a letter from Mr. Corbett, the Clerk of the House of Commons. It's addressed to you, Madam Jennings. It's dated March 24, 2004.
| Dear Mrs. Jennings: |
| In response to your question regarding access to evidence given in camera before a committee during an earlier session of the same Parliament, I have reviewed parliamentary precedents and can provide you with the following comments. |
| When a standing committee decides to continue a study that it initiated during an earlier session of the same Parliament, it can order that the evidence heard during that session, whether given at a public or in camera meeting, be deemed to have been heard during the current session.Precedents from recent sessions confirm this practice, whereby a committee avoids the need to hear the same evidence a second time by adopting a motion to adduce evidence from a previous session. At the same time, evidence heard in camera that is deemed heard during the new session retains its in camera character. |
| With regard to access toin camera evidence, a committee usually adopts a routine motion authorizing its members to contact the committee clerk so they can consult thein camera evidence or any document distributed at an in camera meeting. This applies equally to evidence received during the current session and evidence received in camera during an earlier session and adduced in the current session. |
| Although a committee can make public any evidence that it has heard in camera or dispose of that evidence as it sees fit (e.g., by storage in a confidential wallet or destruction of transcripts at the end of the session), its authority in deciding whether to publishin camera evidence and related documents from an earlier session is uncertain. |
| A precedent that relates indirectly to this circumstance dates back to 1978, when by House Order, a committee was allowed to make available to a commission of inquiryin camera evidence heard during an earlier Parliament and to impose on the commission any conditions that it wished. The committee then adopted a motion to make the documents available to the commission of inquiry for examinationin camera, and required those documents to be returned at the end of the examination. |
| In view of the actions of the House in 1978 and in the absence of other precedents suggesting other options, it would appear to be prudent for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to seek a House Order should it wish to make public in camera evidence from a previous session. |
| I trust this information will be helpful to you. |
| Yours sincerely, |
| William C. Corbett |
A copy has been sent to me as the chair. That document is tabled and available for public distribution.
We have several motions...not the ones that were introduced yesterday; they are available for distribution, but we will not deal with them this morning because they're required to give 48 hours' notice.
Mr. Desrochers is not here, so we'll just skip that.
This is a notice of motion from Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Tonks, I have your motion that the committee hear at least two witnesses should Charles Guité fail to appear on April 1, 2004, and that they both be heads of advertising agencies named in the November 2003 report of the Auditor General, and that one of those witnesses be Jean Lafleur, if scheduling permits.
That is your motion, moved by Mr. Tonks.
(Motion agreed to)
¿ (0935)
I have a motion from Marlene Jennings, MP, which reads:
| That this Committee, in addition to its meetings scheduled on April 5, 6, and 7th, 2004, meet on three days during the week of April 12, 2004, for the sole purpose of hearing from witnesses in matters pertaining to Chapter 3, the Sponsorship Program, Chapter 4, Advertising Activities and Chapter 5, Management of Public Opinion Research, of the November 2003 Auditor General's Report. |
Madam Jennings.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: An agreement was made yesterday between myself and Mr. Toews. Given that he had tabled a motion subsequent to mine that duplicated in some ways my own motion but differed in other ways, Mr. Toews and I have discussed and we've come to an agreement to submit to the committee a joint motion, which would be that this committee, in addition to its meetings scheduled on April 5, 6, and 7, 2004, meet on Tuesday the 13th and Wednesday the 14th, 2004, for the purpose of hearing from witnesses the first day and receiving submissions from our clerks--i.e., first draft report based on the testimony of witnesses to date.
The Chair: Mr. Toews, are you in agreement with that?
Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Would there be unanimous agreement that we deal with Ms. Ablonczy's motion regarding publicly making a statement that we want to give people the opportunity to come forward? I'll just read the motion. Is there unanimous consent we deal with Ms. Ablonczy's motion from yesterday? I'll read the motion:
| That any persons, whether public servants or members of the general public, having information that the person considers relevant to the sponsorship inquiry of this Committee, but who are reluctant or unwilling at this time to come forward publicly, be invited to contact the Public Accounts Committee legal counsel, the Law Clerk, by telephone at (613) 996-1057 or by fax at (613) 992-4317, and that these persons be assured that the Law Clerk will be bound by this motion to respect the privacy of such calls as if governed by solicitor-client privilege, that is, with absolute confidentiality as to the identity of the person providing the information, |
| And, that further, that this committee requests the above arrangement for a completely confidential Committee contact be published at the beginning and end of each televised meeting of this Committee. |
Are we agreeable to deal with the motion? I think we are. Those in favour of the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Of course, I'm still waiting for responses back on the issue dealing with the privacy commissioner. I will leave that for another day.
It looks like we're now ready to hear from our witness, who is just returning.
Did you want to be on the list?
¿ (0940)
Mr. Michel Guimond: No, no. You start with the witness.
[Translation]
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: A point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to the fact that it's 9:40 and we had scheduled a two-hour time slot with the witness. I'm sure you're not going to say, like yesterday, that the meeting began at 9:02. I expect us to have two hours with the witness. Is that right?
[English]
The Chair: Point noted. The meeting started at 9:09 this morning.
Comment?
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I agree with Mr. Guimond, but he has to give us some leeway. If members have run out of questions by the time the meeting would normally adjourn, then we can let the witness go. But if we see that there are still some questions, then we will continue with the witness until two hours have passed.
[English]
The Chair: The orders of the day are, from nine to eleven, Ms. Tremblay, and after that Ms. Marleau. If at eleven o'clock the committee wishes to continue to discuss issues with Ms. Tremblay, that will be the committee's decision, and we'll deal with that at eleven o'clock.
On a point of order, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): This is an important point, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the witness's testimony has not yet been circulated to committee members. The problem, sir, is that seven minutes ago on my way into the room I was shown the testimony by a journalist, and there were other journalists phoning it out to media outlets. So media outlets know about the testimony before we do, and I just think there's a procedural problem there.
The Chair: Well, that is a very important point. I haven't seen a copy of it. I know it's in one language only, but I haven't read it.
I'm not going to deal with this now, but I will ask the clerk and the law clerk. Does anybody have any information to add to this? Does anybody know how this got in the public domain? The clerk can perhaps enlighten us.
The Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As with all documentation, the committee agrees to provide copies to the press gallery. The understanding that was given to the press gallery was that it would not be circulated until the witness's presentation had started. That was the understanding under which it was given. It appears as though that understanding was not respected.
The Chair: I will have to talk to the press gallery, because this is the second time they have not respected the wishes of this committee. We'll just have to cut them off if they--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: When the witness begins, someone will go outside with the documents and distribute them.
The Chair: Ms. Phinney and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I would like to know when it went to printing. And if it was in the press gallery at least 20 minutes ago, why isn't it here?
¿ (0945)
The Chair: It is here; it just hasn't been distributed. It is in one language only, which we have to deal with.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): My only suggestion is that we in fact circulate to members of the committee the evidence at the same time it is circulated to the press gallery. That way at least we'll all have it at the same time. Whatever happens after that, sometimes we have control and sometimes we don't, but at least we'll have the copies.
The Chair: This is the second time our instructions to the media have not been respected. You may recall that when we received the cabinet documents, we delivered them to the press gallery. Because there was a stack of them, I didn't realize they could reproduce them so fast. I said that they would not be made public for two days, and they were in the paper the very next day. Now we have this situation.
Therefore, we will instruct the clerks that no copies will be given in advance to the press gallery if they can't respect the confidence in which they are given. So ordered.
We have these documents in one language only. Is it agreeable that we distribute them, even though they are in one language? We need unanimous consent.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I have two things to say to the witness before she starts. One is a statement, and I give this to everybody; this is not addressed to you personally:
| ...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 in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury. |
That's from Marleau and Montpetit, page 862. As I said, I do that for all witnesses.
I would now like to introduce our witness, Madam Huguette Tremblay, who is employed with the Public Service of Canada. Her statement has been distributed now.
I would now ask you to read your opening statement. Madam Tremblay, please.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay (As Individual): Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, allow me to provide a short statement of my duties in the public service of Canada, including the years when I was involved with the Sponsorship Program.
I have been a public servant since 1975. Back then, I was working at Supply and Services Canada, where I held various secretarial positions.
In 1987, I worked at the Advertising Management Services Branch, under Mr. Joseph Charles Guité, as a secretary. This branch was renamed the Professional Communication Services Branch.
In 1999, Mr. Guité left the branch for the Advertising Management Group, and I followed him there shortly thereafter. Under a new manager, the Professional Communication Services Branch became the Public Relations and Print Contracting Services Sector.
The AMG, or Advertising Management Group, was reorganized and became the Advertising and Public Opinion Research Branch, which was subsequently renamed the Advertising and Public Opinion Research Sector. I do not have the date when these changes were made. At the APORS, I was the office manager and my main task was to see to it that the sector ran smoothly from an administrative point of view.
In 1997, APORS merged with the Public Relations and Print Contracting Services Sector, and that gave rise to the Communications Coordination Services Branch, or CCSB. The Sponsorship Program came under the CCSB.
In August 1999, Mr. Guité retired from the public service and was replaced by Mr. Pierre Tremblay, former chief of staff for Minister Gagliano.
In September 2001, the CCSB was merged with the Canada Information Office to create a new department known today as Communication Canada.
At that point, Mr. Tremblay left for a new position in the public service, and the Sponsorship Program was now run by a new team of public servants, of which I was still part.
Under the Sponsorship Program, my title was chief of special projects. This was my role under the Sponsorship Program. When a sponsorship was approved, I was to put in place the necessary requisitions so that a sponsorship contract could be drawn up. I was also responsible for verifying invoices associated with sponsorship contracts in order to make sure that there was a contract in place for the sponsored event and that there were funds for the contract.
It's important to understand that the verification was limited to that, and if both conditions were met, the invoice had to be paid. It's also important to understand that the Sponsorship Program was, in fact, run by two or three people. These people were the executive director, Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay, the project chief, that is, me, and, under Mr. Tremblay, the sponsorship manager, Ms. Isabelle Roy.
I appended two organization charts to my statement, as requested. You have them in hand.
The decision-making process, in terms of sponsorship approval, was up to the executive director, who in turn received his instructions, in the vast majority of cases, from Minister Gagliano himself or from his office. The executive directors met with the minister personally in his office once a week on average. The executive director would come back from that meeting with the minister's instructions, which we were to follow blindly. On some occasions, I questioned the instructions and was told not to ask any questions and to pay whatever invoices needed paying or to prepare whatever requisitions needed preparing. In addition, we occasionally received requests from the offices of other members of Parliament, and even from the Prime Minister's Office, a few times.
It's important to note that I never had a decision-making role, I was only to carry out instructions. I had no influence on sponsorship approval nor on the choice of communications firms responsible for the sponsorship.
I will answer your questions honestly and to the best of my knowledge. But should I be unable to provide an answer, I will say so frankly.
Thank you.
¿ (0950)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay.
In addition to that opening statement there is attached a diagram, 1997-99 CCSB, and the same for 1999-2001. There is also a sheet that gives the full names of all the acronyms that are referred to in her opening statement. That is now a public document.
I have just one question before we start, Ms. Huguette Tremblay. Were you coached or interviewed, or was it suggested what to say by anybody in government, formerly in government, or connected to government at all? Were you coached or given any direction on how to prepare your statement?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, sir.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.
Point of order.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you asked that question. I believe--and we can check the blues--that when Mr. Gagliano was here you also asked if he had talked to any members of the committee about his testimony. That's my recollection; we can check. But to be consistent, yesterday it would have been helpful to have asked the witness about not only government officials, but members of Parliament sitting at this table.
Thank you.
The Chair: Why don't I get the clerks to draft a statement that I can ask of everybody so it will be consistent?
Did you talk to any members of Parliament, Ms. Tremblay, regarding this issue, other than during your interview at the in camera meeting?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, sir.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Tremblay, for coming here today and providing us with some insight into this issue.
As I understand it, you worked for Mr. Guité essentially from 1987 to 1999 as an administrative assistant. Is that correct?
¿ (0955)
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I was essentially an administrative assistant and office manager.
Mr. Vic Toews: Then you worked for Mr. Pierre Tremblay from 1999 to 2001.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: You've indicated that you monitored the bills for the sponsorship program. In that respect, I note that the function was mechanical rather than substantive. That is, you didn't review the substance of the contracts; you simply ensured that there was a contract there and a proper appropriation of money.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That's correct.
Mr. Vic Toews: I understand that from time to time you would even attend some of the events to ensure there was compliance with what had been undertaken.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That's also correct.
Mr. Vic Toews: Generally speaking, can you talk about the system that was in place--the issue of controls? You indicated you dealt with the contract and made sure a contract was there, but was the actual paper trail involved in all of that extensive? How would you describe that paper trail?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The paper trail was not extensive. Orders were usually given to me verbally, by either Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay, to prepare a requisition that would eventually generate a sponsorship contract. I was told what the event was, what the amount was, and who the advertising agency managing the event would be. It was rarely in writing.
Mr. Vic Toews: Speaking as a former public servant, that is a little unusual. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: Would you say it was deliberately conducted in this way, almost deliberately sloppy?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I believe so.
Mr. Vic Toews: That's based on your experience as a public servant of 29 years.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: On the once-a-week visits Mr. Guité had with the minister, which you've indicated--and I appreciate that's an estimate--did you keep any daytimers, agendas, or other books?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. Mr. Guité had his own agenda, which he kept himself and wrote in himself. Of course, I always had the opportunity to ask him if I could include a meeting with somebody else, but he always kept his own agenda.
Mr. Vic Toews: Did he ever talk about his relationship with the minister?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Vic Toews: Did the subsequent executive director, Mr. Pierre Tremblay, who was the former assistant to Mr. Gagliano, ever indicate or complain about any political interference in the operation?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I remember on a few occasions Mr. Tremblay voicing his opinion in the office that the minister's office would not let us do our jobs, that they were quite frequently interfering in the day-to-day operations of the sponsorship program.
Mr. Vic Toews: Again, speaking as a former public servant myself, I find it somewhat unusual that the minister's office would be interfering in an office that is somewhere down the chain of command. Usually in the public service the minister operates through the deputy's office, and the deputy would then come and visit the executive director or correspond. Is that not the usual...?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, it is.
Mr. Vic Toews: Was there any explanation as to why the minister's office would be directly involved in the handing out of contracts?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I was never given any explanation, but that is how it worked.
Mr. Vic Toews: Did you ever express any concerns about that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Vic Toews: And why wouldn't you have expressed concerns about that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Because that was the hierarchy in the sponsorship program. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it was a very small program. We weren't many employees. There was Mr. Guité and then, underneath him, his assistant...well, when I was his assistant, and then his assistant and me.
Mr. Guité was a director, a DG, and then he became an executive director, and I was an IS-4, which was.... Well, I had the title of chief, but.... So there alone there was a big gap. There was nobody, no buffer--a manager, say, or a supervisor--between me and Mr. Guité. That also is very rare.
À (1000)
Mr. Vic Toews: And that's what strikes me as a little strange, again speaking from my experience as a public servant, that the minister was in charge of crown corporations, a total of 90,000 employees, as we heard in testimony, with a $4 billion budget, and yet we have the minister's office directly involved in what you've described as a relatively small operation. The appropriation was $40 million or whatever, but it was relatively small. So I find that a little odd.
What about the relationship then with the deputy minister? Did he ever drop in to Mr. Guité's office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Vic Toews: No? Well, as I understand the chain of command, there would be the executive director, there would be the deputy minister, and then there would be the minister. What you're in fact telling us, and please correct me if I'm wrong in any way, is that there was a direct relationship then between the minister and his office and Mr. Guité and then Mr. Tremblay.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: And that direct relationship extended to actual interference into the issuing of the contracts.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: That's your testimony.
Now, with regard to some of these ad agencies that you had these contracts with, would representatives ever come to Mr. Guité's office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: Who were those individuals?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There was Jean Brault from Groupaction, Claude Boulay from Groupe Everest, Gilles-André Gosselin from Gosselin Communications stratégiques, Jean Lafleur from Lafleur Communications--
Mr. Vic Toews: And what did they want there?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I was never part of any meetings between them and Mr. Guité, but I imagine it was to discuss sponsorship events, because that's what they did for the government. They managed the sponsorship events on our behalf.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Toews.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, please. You have eight minutes.
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: You're welcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tremblay, thank you for agreeing to appear before us in our search for the truth in connection with the sponsorship scandal. I'm going to ask you short questions in order to get short answers, so that we can make the best use of our time together.
Ms. Tremblay, there was an article in the Toronto Star of March 14, 2004; have you read it?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I have read a number of articles. If you tell me what it's about, I'll be able to give you an answer. The date doesn't ring any bell.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The title was:
[English]
“Scandal tied to PMO; Chretien's aide made calls: Insider politicians deny applying pressure”.
It was written by Robert Cribb.
[Translation]
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I think so.
À (1005)
Mr. Michel Guimond: You think so?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. As I said, I've read a number of articles.
Mr. Michel Guimond: No problem. The article says that Jean Pelletier, Mr. Gagliano, Denis Coderre and Marc LeFrançois called Pierre Tremblay regularly. Is that possible? Is that so?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The article is based on the testimony of an anonymous public servant. Is that you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: It's not you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It's not me.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You said in your introductory statement: "In addition, we occasionally received requests from the offices of other ministers...". Could you name those ministers?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I hope I'm going to get their names right; after all, it's been a while.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, we understand that.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There was a Mr. St-Julien, I believe. Is that possible?
Mr. Michel Guimond: He's not a minister.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: He's a member of Parliament, yes. The word "ministers" is perhaps a mistake. I should have said "members of Parliament" in my statement. There was... Wait a minute.
[English]
The Chair: Madam Tremblay, if you're not sure, I would suggest that you say you don't know the names, or you're not comfortable saying the names. You heard the discussion earlier that we do not want to put names on the table that have nothing to do with the issue. So if you're not sure, then say you're not sure.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Okay.
I remember some of the names but not all of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I'll ask my question again in light of what you have just said. In your notes, you say: "We occasionally received requests from the offices of other ministers...". You say that you received requests from the offices of other ministers and other members of Parliament. You mentioned Guy St-Julien, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. Were there any requests from other ministers or other ministers' offices?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Coderre's office.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Coderre's office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Any others?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Pelletier's office.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As for Mr. Pelletier, that's the second part of the same sentence: "...and even from the Prime Minister's Office, a few times." You've beaten me to the next question I wanted to ask you. Who, from the Prime Minister's Office, was making the requests? You mentioned Mr. Pelletier.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was Mr. Pelletier's office.
Mr. Michel Guimond: We are talking about Jean Pelletier, chief of staff.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. I never spoke with Mr. Pelletier in person. It was someone from his office who would call, a woman whose name I unfortunately don't remember.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Let's come back to the ministers. Were there any others besides Mr. Denis Coderre?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, not that I recall.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The anonymous public servant who spoke to the Toronto Star mentioned that it was requested that the meetings not be officially recorded in the agenda and that secure telephone lines be used. Is that possible, to your knowledge?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know anything about secure telephone lines, but as for the other fact that you put forward, yes, there was...
Mr. Michel Guimond: The meetings were not to be recorded in the agenda officially.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was very rare for them to be recorded.
Mr. Michel Guimond: But why? Did anyone have anything to hide?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You don't know. According to you, was Mr. Coderre calling regularly?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I can't tell you how often he called. I know that he called Mr. Tremblay, but I can't tell you how frequently.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay. If I understand correctly, and I'd like you to clarify this for me, at that time, Mr. Coderre was not involved in the Sponsorship Program. Is that correct?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I've looked at the dates and Mr. Coderre's political background. Mr. Coderre at the time was Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That's correct, yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You remember that.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Why was the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport calling your branch?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was to see if we had received sponsorship requests from different organizations and if these requests had been approved, or to ask us to sponsor certain sporting events.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So, you are referring to different organizations that were asking for support from the Sponsorship Program?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That's correct.
Mr. Michel Guimond: To your recollection, did Mr. Coderre call to make representations on behalf of a particular sponsorship firm?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Could he have called to make requests regarding Everest?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: All right. Do you know where Mr. Coderre worked before entering politics?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I have no idea.
Mr. Michel Guimond: No idea. I'll tell you; Mr. Coderre worked for a firm called Polygone. Did you know that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I know Polygone.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You know Polygone, but did you know that Mr. Coderre worked for Polygone?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: When we look over the entire sponsorship file, we realize that Polygone was a company which received one out of every six dollars under the Sponsorship Program. As a specialist, as an analyst, as someone credible, do you find it normal, reasonable, or acceptable that a firm such as Polygone win the jackpot, or one out of every six dollars? In the course of your duties, did you ask yourself questions relating to this?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, not necessarily.
[English]
The Chair: You are getting into the area of policy, and I'm not sure that these questions are properly directed to Madam Tremblay.
I will monitor the discussion, but remember that Madam Tremblay was a fonctionnaire in the department. Bear that in mind.
Thank you.
À (1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I will follow another line of questioning.
You say that in 2000, during the internal audit, you were concerned about administrative problems concerning outdoor recreation shows. Could you tell us what type of problems you identified?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It had to do with invoicing. We were receiving invoices from Groupaction with no supporting documents. I questioned the fact that we had to pay large amounts, for fees or for production, while there were no supporting documents.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Is that the only thing that's unusual? Is there anything else?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: As far as I can recall, yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Is it possible there may have been invoices for outdoor recreation shows that never took place?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I had heard, at one point, that yes, there had been a show—I think it was the Quebec show—that hadn't taken place and that we had paid for it anyway, but at that point, it was over. When we paid out the invoice, I wasn't aware that the show hadn't taken place.
Mr. Michel Guimond: In the course of your duties, you weren't in a position to know whether the event had actually taken place?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You followed the process from an administrative point of view and dealt with the invoices.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That's correct. I checked to see if there was funding for the contract.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As an honest public servant, you started asking questions in 1998 and in 1999 on...
[English]
The Chair: I didn't quite notice the time. You have just gone 30 seconds over your time, so I'm going to have to cut you off there. I apologize.
We are now going to go to Madam Jennings, please.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay, for your presence here today and for your testimony.
Up until now none of my colleagues have addressed the fact that you worked with Mr. Guité as of 1987. You were there when Mr. Guité was the head of the Advertising and Public Opinion Research Sector, where Mr. Allan Cutler worked. Mr. Cutler was supposed to prepare the contracts. At that time, were you still responsible for preparing the requisitions for a contract?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: At the time, I was the office manager and I was responsible for supervising the operation of the office from an administrative point of view: staffing, relocation, office supplies, etc. No, I didn't have the same duties as when I worked in the Sponsorship Program.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine. But it was still a small sector.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. There were about 13 of us.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And that never changed. I imagine it would not be abnormal for you to have heard about the difficulties that seemed to be arising between Mr. Guité and Mr. Cutler following Mr. Cutler's complaints, who said that orders coming from Mr. Guité in no way complied with Treasury Board policy. Did you indeed hear about this?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Were you also made aware of the fact that Mr. Cutler filed a complaint against the practices of Mr. Guité and that there was an internal investigation, an internal audit following the complaint filed by Mr. Cutler?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, I am aware of it.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Were you aware of the internal audit report that concluded that all the allegations by Mr. Cutler against Mr. Guité were well-founded?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You attended a meeting where Mr. Guité called upon Mr. Cutler to... I think you prepared the minutes. That is when Mr. Cutler informed Mr. Guité that he was leaving.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I do not recall this.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Would you be surprised to learn that in the notes prepared by Mr. Cutler he refers to documents which state that you were present at this meeting? This meeting took place after Mr. Cutler's complaint was filed, and Mr. Guité stated that Mr. Cutler's complaint and the internal audit that had been requested were in no way linked to the fact that Mr. Cutler was being dismissed.
À (1015)
[English]
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I have no recollection of that at all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine. Are you aware of the external audit that followed the internal audit, which was carried out by Ernst & Young in 1996?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You were not aware of this at all? You never saw people whom you had never seen before come in and look into the records, etc.?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I don't recall this at all.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You now know that this did take place, because it's in the public domain.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I know that there had been an internal audit following Mr. Cutler's complaint, but I do not recall what happened afterwards.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And Mr. Guité never told you that the allegations were justified and that subsequently, Ernst & Young was going to conduct an external audit?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. I remember that Mr. Guité
[English]
had dealt with that personally, and nobody else in the office, to my knowledge, was aware of what had transpired in the audit.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.
[Translation]
On page 1 of your text you say: “during the approval of the sponsorship contract, to set up the requisition in order to prepare a sponsorship contract.”
You know that Mr. Cutler, in his complaint dated 1995-96, as well as the Auditor General, in her report, say that some requisitions were dated ahead of contracts, which means that contracts had been written up without a requisition. Subsequently, a requisition would be prepared and a date would be written down, but it can be demonstrated that that was done after the contract. That also means that invoices were approved without a requisition or without a contract. Contracts were created with fake dates on them in order to try to demonstrate that procedures were being followed, and all the while, they weren't.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Were you aware of this, given the fact that you are responsible for receiving the invoices? It was such a common occurrence. I imagine you received invoices, and when you tried to check the contract to see whether there was a contract, whether there was a requisition and if the funds earmarked for this contract were sufficient, you noticed that there was no contract.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Since 1997, never in the Sponsorship Program, no.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Never. And before 1997, in the other programs managed by Mr. Guité?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. I always had a contract when it was time to pay the bills.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And how many contracts did you work on?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Hundreds.
[English]
The Chair: You've got another minute, Marlene.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. No, I'm done.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, for eight minutes, please.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I would like to thank you, Madame Tremblay, for being here and for your courage in giving us fairly clear evidence pertaining to meetings between Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Guité.
I think the first thing I would like to do is to just get some clarification about those meetings. I know this might be repetitious, but bear with me.
How long would a meeting last between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It's very hard to quantify in time. It could be anywhere from an hour; it could be half an hour. To my knowledge, they were not very long. It wasn't an all-day affair.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Again, how often did you think they met?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I am giving you an average of once a week. There could have been weeks when they did not meet, there could have been weeks when they met twice, so that's why I'm giving you an average of once of a week.
À (1020)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. That's appreciated.
Did they meet in Mr. Guité's office, or Mr. Gagliano's office, or both?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Never in Mr. Guité's office.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Never in Mr. Guité's office. Mr. Guité would leave and he'd say “I'm going”. Would he say “I'm going”?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: He would say “I'm going to the minister's office” or “I'm going to see the minister”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you think, if we can pursue the daily agendas of Mr. Gagliano, that there might be some evidence there of Mr. Gagliano meeting regularly?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know. I don't know the scheduling of a minister's office or how it works. I wouldn't know--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Or what was kept and what was destroyed.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: --what was kept in Mr. Gagliano's agendas.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We are asking for the daily agendas of Mr. Gagliano from the whole period of time we're talking about. We'll see.
If we don't find evidence there—I'm asking a subjective question here—do you think we should pursue computer records to get a better handle on any exchanges between Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Guité?
You see what we're up against. We're up against Mr. Gagliano saying one thing and....
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I can't answer for what went on in Mr. Gagliano's office because I never worked in Mr. Gagliano's office or any other minister's office. I have no clue as to how scheduling works.
I know that Mr. Guité always worked with a paper agenda. He rarely used the computers, so it would be a paper agenda.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are you saying Mr. Guité worked...?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Guité, yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Guité kept his own....
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, he did.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did you have any involvement at all in scheduling meetings or rearranging his schedule or keeping track?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I would sometimes. If somebody asked to see him, I would ask him if it was possible and if that person could be fit in, but he basically kept his own agenda.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did Mr. Guité ever ask you to call the minister's office and schedule anything?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Never.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did the minister's office call you regularly?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No.
You assume the meetings took place in Mr. Gagliano's office. Do you have any sense that they might have taken place in other settings, in social settings, in bars, in restaurants?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I know that they sometimes met in a restaurant in Ottawa—I believe it was Mama Theresa's—and in Mr. Gagliano's office.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: If we could get the agendas from Mr. Gagliano and if we could get the telephone logs and the expense accounts, we might be able to piece this together.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: You might.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a possibility.
In terms of Mr. Guité's office, was there anyone else besides you who was involved in scheduling or in assistance?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. When I became chief of special projects, then he had other assistants. They were responsible for his agenda at that point.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are there any other individuals we could call upon who would corroborate what you have told us, in terms of regular meetings between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I imagine that the assistants who were there after me would, I'm pretty sure, corroborate what I've told you.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you have any correspondence that you kept or that you could get access to that would be between Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Guité?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We've heard before—and again, this is evidence or information that has been collected informally—that there were regular meetings between Mr. Guité from Public Works, Mr. Pelletier from the Prime Minister's Office, and Mr. Roger Collet from, at that time, the Canada Information Office. Did you ever see any such regular meetings? I was told that they happened every Tuesday. Were there any? Can you think back and see, were there times when Mr. Guité set a specific time to meet with the guys?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Not a specific time. I know that he met with Mr. Collet. I am not aware that Mr. Pelletier was there, however.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You saw no evidence of contact with Mr. Pelletier or any meetings.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did Mr. Guité ever say “I'm off to the Prime Minister's Office”?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. He would say “I'm off to see Roger Collet” or “I'll be with Roger Collet”. He never told me he was going to the Prime Minister's Office.
À (1025)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How often do you think he would meet with Mr. Collet--any sense?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I'm sorry.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It seems to me the link with Roger Collet is important, so we're trying to sort of....
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I know he met with him, but I can't remember the frequency.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's been our understanding that Mr. Guité was the key person who decided which sponsorship application would get approved or not. Do you believe that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: On his own? No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So you don't believe that.
We've had some comments through the media from different sources. This one is an anonymous source who worked with an agency who said, and I quote from this article, “It was clear that Chuck was key, meaning he decided who got the contracts”. You don't believe that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. He was a key player, but....
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: He was a key player, but do you believe he was part of a bigger agenda, a bigger mandate, that he was being asked to carry out responsibilities and duties by someone else, or other persons?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Have you got any sense of this going beyond Mr. Gagliano--other ministers in and out of the office, any calls to other ministers?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Not that I'm aware of.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can you tell us if you noticed any regular calls or contacts with members of the federal Liberal Party in the province of Quebec?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Was there a regular flow through Mr. Guité's office of persons representing the four or five ad firms that are mentioned in the Auditor General's report?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: They did come to the office regularly.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How regularly?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Once or twice a month.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Does anyone stand out as being very regular?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The four I mentioned previously.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Any individual....
The Chair: Mr. Kenney is next, please. We're now on round two, so it will be four minutes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Madam Tremblay, for your integrity in appearing before us today, and your clear demonstration of what true public service is. It's not something we've seen consistently at this committee, and I very much appreciate your frankness and integrity in coming before us today. I believe all Canadians will.
Madam Tremblay, presumably you've been following these hearings and the general coverage of them. Were you surprised last week to hear former Minister Gagliano testify to the effect that he only met with Mr. Guité three or four times a year?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, I was.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Let me quote to you from Mr. Gagliano's testimony last week. In response to a question I posed, he said, “I recall that, on average, I would have three to four meetings a year with Mr. Guité.”
Your understanding is that's completely inaccurate. Is that correct?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm at a loss to understand why a former minister would think he could come to this committee and suggest that he'd only met three or four times a year with Mr. Guité. Is there some reason why you believe he thought that would be a believable story?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know. As I said, I was surprised to hear Mr. Gagliano say that, but why he did it or what his reasoning was behind it, I'm sorry, I have no idea.
Mr. Jason Kenney: In your statement, Madam Tremblay, you said:
[Translation]
| Moreover, on occasion we would receive requests from the offices of other ministers and even, on some occasions, from the Prime Minister's Office. |
[English]
Who from the Prime Minister's Office contacted your office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was somebody in Mr. Pelletier's office.
Mr. Jason Kenney: It was somebody in Mr. Pelletier's office, but not Mr. Pelletier himself.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Not to me....
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you recall the name of the person?
The Chair: I think it's important to point out this was when Mr. Pelletier was in the Prime Minister's Office, and not when he was the chair of VIA Rail. Am I correct in saying that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
À (1030)
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Kenney.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm sorry, I don't recall the name. It was a lady. She called on several occasions, but I cannot remember her name.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Did you get frequent contact in your office from Pierre Tremblay when he was in the minister's office as chief of staff?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Myself?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Did Mr. Guité's office...?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Did Mr. Guité's office receive frequent contact from Jean-Marc Bard from the minister's office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Guité, no. Mr. Tremblay, yes, because he was there after Mr. Tremblay came to sponsorship.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Oh right, he succeeded Mr. Tremblay in the minister's office, so he would have called over on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Tremblay would deal with Mr. Bard.
Mr. Jason Kenney: What about Pierre Brodeur, who was also in Mr. Gagliano's office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I remember him speaking--not to me--either to Mr. Tremblay or Ms. Roy, who worked with us once Mr. Tremblay joined the sponsorship program.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Do you recall any ongoing contact to your office from representatives of major crown corporations such as Canada Post or VIA Rail?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. LeFrançois from VIA Rail was a frequent caller to Mr. Guité. I can't remember anyone else. That's the only one who comes to mind right now.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You don't recall anybody from Canada Post or the RCMP contacting your office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Okay. Do you have any idea what Monsieur LeFrançois was contacting Monsieur Guité or Monsieur Tremblay to discuss?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You testified in answer to a question posed by Mr. Guimond that you had seen inflated invoices coming through your office. When you saw what appeared to be inflated invoices, how would you deal with this?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I didn't say “inflated invoices”, I said invoices that had no backup documents.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I believe you told the auditor on this that there were contracts for events that occurred in 1998 and 1999 that weren't signed until late in 1999, contracts that were signed after the events had occurred. Apparently you told auditors that you asked questions about these files but were told by one of your superiors, “Don't ask.” Is that correct?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The only one that comes to mind right now would be the Maurice Richard contract, the Maurice Richard production. That contract was issued, I believe, in late 1999 or 2000. I'm not sure of the fiscal year now. That was under Mr. Pierre Tremblay.
When I questioned, because it was a production contract--usually when it's a production contract, we have to have a scope of work; it's not just straight sponsorship--saying, “You cannot give out a production contract without giving me some kind of scope of work to work with; that has to be put into the contract, especially for that amount of money,” his response to me was, “Huguette, we have to do it, so just do it.”
The Chair: Mr. Mills, please.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Ms. Tremblay, for being here today. It's great to have someone with such history on this communications file.
I notice that you started in 1987.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Did you notice that some of the agencies that were dealing with the government in the last few years in Quebec actually go back as far as 1987?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. There weren't any sponsorships in 1987.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm talking about the agencies you dealt with.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Dennis Mills: You didn't deal with agencies when you first started in 1987?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
À (1035)
Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay.
You mentioned earlier today that the contracts or the direction you received for events, amounts, manager, and agency from Mr. Guité were all verbal.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: From 1997 to 2003, there were 1,986 projects. All of it was verbal?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Until what year, did you say--2003?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Until 2003. There was a total 1,986 events across Canada, and on all of those events you simply had verbal direction?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, because Mr. Guité left in 1999.
As you know, in 2000 there was an internal audit conducted within the sponsorship program. That was, I believe, asked for by Mr. Quail, the deputy minister. After that audit was done and the conclusions of the audit, there was a much better paper trail in the files, because that was one of their comments, I believe.
Mr. Dennis Mills: That was after 1999.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: After 2000.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay. So just to take a specific year, 1997-98, there were 191 events across Canada. They weren't all in Quebec, as you know. All of the direction given to you on 191 events was just verbal?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I mean, we would get lists. Mr. Guité would give me a list, and he would say okay...but those lists were never included in the files. Or I'd have a meeting with him, and he'd say, okay, such and such an event. I would write these things down and do my requisitions--
Mr. Dennis Mills: So it was a combination of some written and some verbal.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, but there were never any formal letters, or not in those days.
Mr. Dennis Mills: That's fine.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday you gave me 45 seconds. I'm just wondering how much time I have left today.
The Chair: I didn't give you 45 seconds. Your compatriot used up most of your time.
Today you have about a minute and thirty seconds left.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay. So in this minute and thirty seconds, I'd like to deal with the point that Mr. Guimond brought up, and I think it's relative to the witness.
Mr. Guimond referred to the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Denis Coderre, as coming to the sponsorship program asking for support for amateur sporting events across Canada. Correct?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I want to be on the record, Chair and colleagues, that there was a period of time when I chaired that committee responsible for sport in Canada, and I can tell you that there were members of Parliament from more than just the Liberal Party who came to me, and I certainly, on more than one occasion, on their behalf, called Mr. Guité directly and said, “Please, if this project is worthy, consider sponsoring it.”
So I don't think we should leave the impression with people across Canada that sporting events that we sponsored were just in Quebec. They were in fact across Canada. Is that...?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Oh, yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: In fact, you would agree that a lot of those sporting events were not just in ridings of Liberal members but in ridings of all parties.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Thanks, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Murphy, please, four minutes.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Like my colleagues, I want to thank you, Madam Tremblay.
The first issue I want to talk about is that we've heard testimony before in this hearing that this sort of sponsorship “group”, as I call it, was a small group. Somebody has reference to it being fewer than 14 people, but from what you're saying, it's actually quite a bit smaller than that. It really seemed to be Gagliano, Guité, and you were performing the administrative function of paying invoices.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It wasn't a very big group. As I said before, there was Mr. Guité, there was me, there was his assistant, and there were clerical people who would do letters and so on. It grew as the years progressed. When Mr. Tremblay took over, as I said, and Mrs. Roy joined the group, then we hired other people to manage the events, because we were getting more and more demands for events.
So in total, I would say, we were maybe ten people.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: So it was an extremely small group.
My second area, Madam Tremblay, and I want you to elaborate on this, is that around 1990-91 there seemed to be a total culture change in the sponsorship program. I know in my dealings with the applications, and I was only elected in 2000, it seemed that these groups had to follow quite an elaborate application. To get the money they had to give everything, including, I think, a sample of their own DNA--
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Sorry, what year was that?
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Since about 1991 there seemed to be--
An hon. member: Since 2001.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Oh, I apologize, it is 2001.
Since 2001 there seemed to be a lot more rigour in the administration of the system. The pile of documents that these people had to file was quite onerous for smaller groups. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. Once all of this came about--this “scandal”, if you want to call it that--we were put under Communication Canada, and then the whole program was redefined completely under a new minister. We then got rid of the agencies, and everything was done internally. A questionnaire was drafted that the organizations had to fill out. It was a very big process as of 2001, or 2002, really, I would say.
À (1040)
Hon. Shawn Murphy: We've heard testimony also, Mrs. Tremblay, and a very disturbing allegation about a double invoice involving Groupaction. Were you involved? And if you were, do you have anything to add to that issue?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: A double invoice concerning which file?
Hon. Shawn Murphy: The allegation is that it's Groupaction. It was a $500,000 invoice. We don't know, we're not at the bottom of the story yet, but it appears that it may have been paid twice.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm not aware of that.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Were you involved in any way with verification? Let's assume you had an invoice for so much money that would be for production costs. Were you involved in the verification that this production was actually done?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: You would get the invoice, you would check it against the contract. What verification was done as to the work that was actually done?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That was the responsibility of the executive director.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: The responsibility of Guité.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: As well as Mr. Tremblay, yes.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: All right. So they would tell you...
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: They would sign under section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, which says that the goods and services have been received.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Did they provide you with any supporting documentation as to the veracity of that statement?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: The file wouldn't include any kind of an affidavit.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: For some files, we did ask for post-mortem reports from the advertising agencies.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Murphy, that was your last question.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: For most of the files, we did receive a post-mortem, but I believe it was found out, through the different audits, that some of them were missing.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Thank you very much.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: You're welcome.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Kenney, four minutes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney:
Ms. Tremblay, in your statement, you said, and I quote:
| The decision-making process with respect to the approval of a sponsorship contract was the executive director's responsibility and he received his instructions, in the vast majority of cases, from Minister Gagliano himself or from his office. |
[English]
Could you please elaborate on this? How did you arrive at this inference that in the great majority of cases, Mr. Gagliano himself or his cabinet were involved in the approval process?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Well, as I said before, Mr. Guité had frequent meetings in the minister's office. When he would come back from a meeting--I'm not saying every single meeting, because he could have met with the minister on a different topic--very often when he would come back from the minister's office, we were given directives as to which sponsorships had been approved. So, I mean, if I put one and one together....
Mr. Jason Kenney: Did you ever hear Mr. Guité say that the minister approved this project or the minister asked for this project to be approved? You made a reasonable inference that this was the process.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: He might have referred to that on a couple of occasions.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You think that it would be fair and accurate to say that there was political direction in the management of the program and the approval of the contracts.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It is my belief, yes.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I was asking you earlier about what you had said to auditors with respect to the 2000 audit. I'd like to ask you what the main types of irregularities were that you saw in the contracting, such as backdating of contracts or, as you mentioned, verbal rather than written information. Were there any other kinds of consistent irregularities in the contracting procedure?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There weren't many irregularities in the contracting procedure. What I saw mostly was in the invoicing, where there were no backup documents to support the invoices, especially when it was production costs and hours worked. There were very rarely any backup documents to support the amounts charged.
À (1045)
Mr. Jason Kenney: I asked you earlier about your comment that officials from the Prime Minister's Office would contact your office occasionally, that of Mr. Guité and then Mr. Tremblay. Do you have any sense that the Prime Minister's Office or people representing it were intervening by asking for approval of particular projects?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The Prime Minister's Office? Except for the time that I received calls from Mr. Pelletier's office, no, I'm not aware.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So you weren't aware of the contents of those conversations, just that they were calls coming in?
So Mr. Guité would never present you with an invoice to be prepared, saying that it was following a discussion with somebody in the Prime Minister's Office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, no.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I'd like maybe just to pull back a few steps here, Madame Tremblay. As you have followed the Auditor General's report and these hearings, how would you explain how this happened in terms that Canadians could understand? How could this happen for so long, and how could, in the words of the Auditor General, all the rules be broken?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It's very hard to break rules when none were in place. When it came to sponsorships, there were no rules in place. From what I've told you today and what you've heard from other people, things were done, contracts were drafted, invoices were paid, and no questions were ever asked.
So I come to the conclusion that you can't break a rule if it's not there.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kenney.
We'll go on to Mr. Guimond. In the first round, all parties had one intervention of eight minutes each. In the second round, the Conservative Party should have been followed by the Bloc, followed by two interventions by the Liberal Party, because the Bloc of course has two seats at this committee.
In the second round, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis didn't get a mention, as she had her eight minutes in the first round.
Now we're on to the third round. Again, because the Bloc does not have three seats on the committee, it is the Conservatives and the Liberals, but I will have Mr. Guimond's intervention at this point in time.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I assume I can count on you acting in good faith, and I will take five seconds to tell you that I am not very pleased with your decision.
Ms. Tremblay, during an internal audit at Public Works, you mentioned that there had been some problems, especially respecting invoicing, because of the lack of supporting documents. Is this correct?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You asked questions concerning outdoor recreation shows and someone told you: "Don't ask". Who said this to you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Guité.
Mr. Michel Guimond: What did this “don't ask” mean to you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: With respect to the shows, I received invoices from Groupaction for amounts that were fairly high, and there were no supporting documents. So on my own initiative, I phoned the agency. I spoke to someone in the company and asked them to send me supporting documents because I needed to send this to finance and it wouldn't go through without supporting documents. The person told me: “Okay, no problem.” The same day, or perhaps the following day—this happened several years ago and I cannot recollect every detail— Mr. Guité called me into his office to tell me that there had been a phone call from the president of Groupaction telling him that someone in our sector was asking questions on invoicing. Mr. Guité said to me: “Listen, Huguette, simply check the invoice and pay it off, and don't ask questions.”
Mr. Michel Guimond: Therefore, the supplier, who was the beneficiary of taxpayers' dollars, was in a position to directly contact your boss to tell him to tell you not to ask any questions. Is that correct? Did the fact that you were told not to ask any questions indicate there was political interference?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: In my opinion, yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: In your opinion, yes. Who, in your view, was behind this political interference?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It probably came from the minister's office, because that's where the contacts were taking place.
À (1050)
Mr. Michel Guimond: The office of Minister Gagliano.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You said that you received many calls from the Prime Minister's Office. You also mentioned Mr. Pelletier.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: A few calls, yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: A few calls. Did Mr. Jean Carle ever call?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't remember Mr. Jean Carle calling. I do remember that Mr. Carle often came to the office to see Mr. Guité.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Oh, so Mr. Carle came to the office. He did not even have to call.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As regards requests from ministers' offices, you mentioned Mr. Coderre. Did he ever personally call?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know, because he did not call me personally. If I was told that Mr. Coderre's office had called, it did not necessarily mean that Mr. Coderre himself was on the line; it may very well have been someone else. I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The questions asked on behalf of Mr. Coderre... I want to talk about L'Almanach du peuple. Were there any problems associated with L'Almanach du peuple? Were there any problems with regard to the radio segments? Were there any problems as regards open-air shows? Does any of this ring a bell?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, these are all files I saw. These files were managed by Groupaction and they involved production done by Groupe Polygone.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So you cannot tell us whether the tone of comments coming from Mr. Coderre's office was the same as the tone of comments made by other members of the House of Commons, or whether in fact Mr. Coderre's office was issuing directives?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a final question. It has to do with the Maurice Richard series. You may not recall this, but on May 30th, 2002, there was a piece in the Globe and Mail about the Maurice Richard series. In the course of the 2000 audit, you said that the projects associated with this series were—
The Chair: This is your final question.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You mentioned that the projects associated with the Maurice Richard series were highly politicized. What exactly do you mean by “highly politicized”?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm trying to remember what I said. Please understand that I spent two months with the auditors. I said many things.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Don't forget that Mr. Guy Scully received $7.5 million from the Sponsorship Program.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: In my opinion, almost every single file was highly politicized.
Mr. Michel Guimond: What exactly does that mean?
The Chair: Mr. Thibault, please. You have four minutes.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Thank you, Ms. Tremblay, for being here today and for your excellent presentation.
I would like you to tell us a little more about how often the office of Mr. Guité or of Mr. Tremblay met with the office of the minister. In your presentation, you indicated that these meetings took place on a monthly basis.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, they were weekly meetings.
Hon. Robert Thibault: These weekly meetings were held between Mr. Tremblay or Mr. Guité, especially, and the office of the minister, sometimes with the minister present, sometime with the minister's representatives.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Even though these meetings were not on any agenda, were you aware of every meeting that took place between Mr. Guité and the minister or a member of his staff?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: You're asking me whether I was aware of every single meeting?
Hon. Robert Thibault: Yes.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Probably not, no.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Did these meetings, which took place between Mr. Guité and the minister or members of his staff, always involve sponsorship files, or were other issues also discussed?
À (1055)
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I imagine that they could have been discussing other issues. But I know that sponsorship matters were often discussed, although other subjects could have come up. I'm not sure.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Let's extrapolate. People from the director general's office met weekly with people from the minister's office. They sometimes discussed sponsorship issues and sometimes they talked about other things. The minister was sometimes present, but not necessarily very often. There were also meetings with the minister's staff. All that is possible. You don't have to say whether you agree with Mr. Gagliano's statement, but it is possible that it was accurate. It is possible that the minister personally met with the director general three or four times a year to specifically discuss sponsorship matters.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Hon. Robert Thibault: But in your presentation you did not indicate how often these meetings took place. You said that there were meetings between the director general and the office... Did these meetings continue after Mr. Tremblay came on the scene?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Just as often?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Hon. Robert Thibault: After the 37-point action plan was adopted in October 2000, major changes were made in the way these programs were implemented, in their method and in their regulation. Would you agree with that statement?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There were some changes, yes.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Would you say that there were rather stringent rules in place at that time?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Criteria were implemented to select events. It was to make the entire process more transparent. I was not involved in the development of the criteria. Rather, it was Ms. Roy who worked with Mr. Tremblay. But I know that criteria were implemented. When an event was submitted to obtain sponsorship funds, we had to follow the established criteria.
Hon. Robert Thibault: We heard that the criteria had become so stringent that they became a real burden for some organizations.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That was later, after the unit became Communication Canada.
Hon. Robert Thibault: It was the implementation of the 37-point action plan which was developed after Mr. Gagliano asked for an internal audit.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, but it happened after the events following disclosure by the media that Groupaction had not produced certain reports. After that, the RCMP became involved. By that time, the whole process had become much more stringent and the agencies had been sidelined.
Hon. Robert Thibault: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman. Please let me know whether my question is in order or not.
Ms. Tremblay, the chairman of the committee asked you whether you had received instructions from committee members or government members. Have you received instructions from other people who may be called to testify before the committee or who will testify before the committee, or have you had any discussions with these people?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Thibault.
Ms. Phinney, please, for four minutes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you appearing before the committee, Madam Tremblay.
I would like to ask you some questions about who could send in requests or who could ask for money in the sponsorship fund. Could Joe Blow from my riding, Hamilton Mountain, ask for money from this fund?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. If they had a project, an event, a festival, or any kind of public event where they were looking for funds to put that event together, they could apply for a sponsorship.
Ms. Beth Phinney: And this means anybody across Canada?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: So if somebody from my riding asked for some money, say $10,000, and they phoned you or wrote you....
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: They would send a request, yes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: That means a written letter, or was there a form to fill out?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, for those it was a letter.
Ms. Beth Phinney: In my riding I would expect my constituents to come to me--and they do come to me--when they were dealing with any government agency. There's been some indication that people are surprised if MPs have gotten involved in any of these requests, but I consider that part of my job. So if you had received a phone call from me saying I had a specific group in my riding that was interested in getting some money, would you have found that unusual?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, but I would have told you to ask these people to send us a formal request.
Ms. Beth Phinney: What if they had already made the request?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: If they had already made the request, no, I would not have found that unusual.
Ms. Beth Phinney: But do you consider that political interference? You've been asked that several times.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No. It would become political interference--and this did happen--when an organizer would ask us for funds, for whatever reason we would decline their request, then they would go to their member of Parliament, the member of Parliament would phone us and say, listen, I really would like this event to be approved, and then the decision would be overturned. That, I find, is political pressure.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, I would ask you, then, what is a politician supposed to do? If somebody in my riding asks for something and they're told no, isn't it perfectly all right for me to phone up and say, look, this is really interesting--
Mr. Vic Toews: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the question being asked is putting this witness in a very difficult situation.
Ms. Beth Phinney: No, it isn't.
Mr. Vic Toews: Remember, Mr. Chair, that this individual is a public servant, and now she's being asked, what should a politician do? I know what a public servant should do, and that is follow the proper directions of her superiors. For her to be put into this kind of embarrassing situation is not correct.
Á (1100)
The Chair: The question as to what a politician should do is not appropriate. It has been asked of the witness, but I do think that an appropriate question would be, what is the process by which a member of Parliament can access this grant fund?
Ms. Phinney.
Ms. Beth Phinney: The reason I'm asking the question, Mr. Chairman, is because this witness has used the words “political interference”, that expression, several times today, and I'm not sure what she thinks political interference is.
The Chair: You can ask her what political interference is, you can ask her for direction, but you cannot ask what a politician should do because she can't tell us what to do.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, so my questions might not be exactly as the lawyers in the opposition might wish.
The Chair: I know. You may recall that I cautioned Mr. Guimond, who was talking about the amount of money going into one particular area.
Mr. Dennis Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on Mr. Toews' point of order, because confusion is beginning to set in within certain parts of the public service.
A few days ago I called the passport office to intervene on behalf of a constituent in a desperate situation--
The Chair: Is this relevant?
Mr. Dennis Mills: --and the public servant said that's political interference. I happen to believe that kind of situation is crazy when MPs can't intervene and this impression starts setting in across government departments. That goes against your statement, Mr. Chair, about democracy breaking down here.
The Chair: What I'm trying to say, Mr. Mills--and I'm not going to take any more points of order on this issue, I'll just give a directive--is that if the witness says she believes it's political interference, it's perfectly legitimate to ask on what basis she believes that. If you would like to find out the process by which members of Parliament may access grant moneys, that's perfectly legitimate too. But you can't say, tell me as a member of Parliament what I should do. She can tell you the process, but she can't give you direction; there's a subtle difference.
Mr. Toews' point was that you can't ask a public servant to tell members of Parliament what to do. They can tell you the process by which you should access these moneys if it's your desire to access the grant funds, the same as if you phone the passport office and ask, what is the process? Getting the process is fine.
Ms. Phinney.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, I think the witness already answered the question. I wanted to hear from the witness what she thought if a politician phoned after a grant had been refused, asked why, and said, I'd really like this to go through; I think it's a good idea. That's not political interference; the political interference is if somebody else approves the project after that.
Is it not possible that Mr. Guité made 100% correct decisions the first time but on second thought changed his mind? Is that not just a clearing of the air and saying, well, yes, now that I look at this a second time, maybe there is good merit in this project? Is it possible that is not necessarily political interference as a negative factor?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm not saying it's necessarily a negative factor, but if every time a.... And I'm talking from when I worked there, from what my perspective is. We received so many requests for sponsorships, and of course we could not approve them all; it was impossible. Some of them were approved and others weren't, and this was a lot of work. I'm talking from a civil servant's point of view. When you have so much work to do and every time--not every time, but often--a project is refused the organizer goes to his MP and the MP phones, it's never-ending. At one point you have to draw the line. We did have some criteria, and if it didn't fit within our criteria, well, you can't approve them all.
The Chair: I'll give you one more question on political interference if you want.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I just don't want my constituents to feel they can't phone their member of Parliament because if they phone their member of Parliament their name is going to go off the list on this project. I had that reported to me from two different places, that when the member's staff phoned about a project, they were immediately told by the civil servant at the other end of the phone, since you've called, that project is off the list. I don't feel that is the correct action either.
Á (1105)
The Chair: No, I agree with you.
Ms. Beth Phinney: That's why I'm trying to clarify what our role is to help our constituents.
The Chair: If anyone in the public service were to say that, I would think the member of Parliament would be obligated to take it up with the minister to ensure that our job as advocates on behalf of our constituents doesn't deny them their entitlement rather than promote their entitlement.
We have orders of the day. However, there was some discussion earlier on that we might wish to continue questions to Madam Tremblay. Is it the desire of the committee that we continue to question Madam Tremblay?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: It seems to be the wish of the committee, so we will continue.
We'll now move into the next round, which will start with Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Tremblay, thank you for your testimony and your presence here today.
I want to go back to a couple of points you made in your testimony. At one point you said that Mr. Tremblay, the executive director, said in your presence, “Why don't they let us do our job?” You also commented at one point in your assessment of what was happening--and I'm presuming you were talking specifically about sponsorship programs--that “There was a lack of controls. It was deliberately sloppy and there were no paper trails.”
Can you expand for us on what you saw that led you to that conclusion? I'm assuming you're talking about how the decisions were being made, how the decisions were arrived at, the moneys that were being attached to these particular programs. So could you comment on those two previous statements you made--first on “Why won't they let us do our job?” Who wasn't letting you do your job, and what did you feel your job was at that point?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: When I made the statement, “Why don't they let us do our job?” it was Mr. Tremblay speaking, not me.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I heard him say that on a couple of occasions. I guess it was because he was frustrated by the directives that were given to him by the minister's office.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you ever see any of these directives?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you share that sentiment, though, that somebody was interfering in what you thought was your job?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And who was interfering?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was the minister's office. A lot of the directives came from above, and--
Mr. Peter MacKay: How were those directives relayed to you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: They were relayed to me by Mr. Tremblay verbally, and I believe that he met with the minister's office, as Mr. Guité did when he was in the function.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you believe that the directives to Mr. Tremblay came from Mr. Guité?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, Mr. Guité had left the public service.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Oh, I see...at that point.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It was from the minister's office.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And with respect to this lack of controls, what were your observations about that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Well, you asked me what it is that I saw. It should be what it is that I didn't see--
Mr. Peter MacKay: What you didn't see.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: --which means that there weren't any backup documents, there weren't any written directives....
Mr. Peter MacKay: So there was no air of professionalism, no controls. It appeared to be out of control. Would you say that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There weren't many internal controls.
Mr. Peter MacKay: There was a statement made by the Prime Minister at one point that there was a very sophisticated cover-up that was taken on by this small group who did this, those people who were not going to come to the government and say that they were breaking every rule in the book.
Do you feel that's an accurate statement as to what was going on here, that there were a very few people making these decisions? Were they persons in your office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Well, the person in our office who was making the decisions was Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay, with the minister's office.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And were they acting independently of the minister, in your view?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Were they acting independently?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Were they making those decisions themselves, or were they making them in consultation?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm sure that some of them must have been made.... I don't think the very small sponsorship events--the $2,000 ones or whatever--were all approved at the ministerial level. I doubt that very much. But the bigger sponsorship events, I'm pretty sure--
Mr. Peter MacKay: They were on Mr. Gagliano's desk.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: --were discussed by Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano.
Mr. Peter MacKay: They would have been on the minister's desk, in other words.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm pretty sure of that, yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, that's it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Tonks, please.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Tremblay, for being here.
Ms. Tremblay, you had indicated that you became concerned about huge bills, but that there was no documentation. You gave as an example an affair that a contract had been made for, but the affair never took place. Is that an accurate description of what you said?
Á (1110)
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Is that during the 2000 audit? Is that what you're referring to?
Mr. Alan Tonks: No, you didn't say that. You said you had serious concerns about issues like that affair or event that had not taken place, but for which you had signed some sort of requisition, a payment.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, you're probably referring to the Maurice Richard file.
Mr. Alan Tonks: All right.
Would you consider that something of a criminal nature, paying for something that never took place?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm not in a position to give you an answer like that, because I have no knowledge of what is criminal and what isn't. I'm not an expert in criminal law.
Mr. Alan Tonks: But as a civil servant, and given your role and the limited amount that you were able to see the flow of these applications, did you see that happen very often where there was payment and you knew the event didn't take place?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
The event had taken place the year before in the Maurice Richard case. So the event had taken place. it's just that the payment was done in another fiscal year.
Mr. Alan Tonks: So there was value for money, then?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Alan Tonks: That's not the way the testimony sounded. It sounded like there was no value, that there simply had been an invoice given and stamped approval and payment was made.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: In the case of the Maurice Richard file, that was public knowledge at one point. VIA Rail was involved in that file. It was like a payback to VIA Rail for money that they had advanced the government the year before for the Maurice Richard series.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. But you did have concerns that you saw.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Alan Tonks: How early did these concerns start?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: When they asked me to do the requisition for a production contract with no scope of work.
Mr. Alan Tonks: All right. And who would you complain to if you felt...?
Mr. Cutler has been before us, and I could give you his testimony, but we don't have time. He generally said much the same thing, that these things were happening and he went through the process of making a complaint. We know that particular hierarchy of procedure. Who would you complain to?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I did. I spoke to Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Alan Tonks: To Mr. Tremblay.
Did you speak to Mr. Guité prior to that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: He wasn't there at that time.
Mr. Alan Tonks: So it was Mr. Tremblay?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.
There was a meeting that was referred to by one of my colleagues with respect to Mr. Cutler. He had indicated that Mr. Guité had now the authority to authorize expenditures, to go through all of the approvals that have been described. There was a meeting that had been held in 1994, and I'm going to refer to it:
| At this meeting, Mr. Guité told us that normal rules and regulations should not apply to advertising. He said he would talk to the minister to have them changed. |
And at that meeting Mr. Cutler indicates there was a Tremblay who was there. Do you not recall being at that?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I do not recall that at all.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Were there any other Tremblays in 1994?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Is it possible it could have been you, that you--
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: It's possible, but I honestly do not recall.
Mr. Alan Tonks: If you reflected on that you--and I'd ask that you seriously consider this--you would have again realized later on there were serious issues with respect to processes, wouldn't you, and you would have gone to your superior, who would have been Mr. Tremblay?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: At that time, yes.
Mr. Alan Tonks: But that didn't happen?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I did go to Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Alan Tonks: But nothing happened?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
We've had our full four rounds, and according to the seats at the table here and the wishes of the committee I'm suggesting we go to a one-party round of four minutes each. Is that acceptable? Then perhaps if we wish to continue on, fine, but if we wish to dismiss the witness, we can do so at that time.
It will be Mr. Kenney, Monsieur Guimond, Madam Jennings, and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Mr. Kenney, please, for four minutes.
Á (1115)
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.
Madam Tremblay, Did you see any documents destroyed in your office at any time, a suspicious destruction of documents?
The Chair: If you wish to consult with your counsel, please feel free.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, please.
I never destroyed any documents personally. I remember Mr. Guité shredding documents. I couldn't tell you what they were. I have no idea. I do know some documents were shredded, but I couldn't tell you which ones.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Your tenure with the office was terminated when?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Jason Kenney: When did your tenure at the office end?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm still a part of the department.
Mr. Jason Kenney: So during the lead-up to the 2000 audit, did you see any activity on the part of Mr. Tremblay that would lead you to infer that he was not being completely forthcoming with the audit?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Mr. Tremblay wasn't involved in the 2000 audit. He put me in charge of it because he said I was the corporate memory. So he put me in charge of the audit. He had very little to do with it.
Mr. Jason Kenney: All right.
One of the big questions that we're trying to sort out, Madame Tremblay, is what happened to moneys that were not properly appropriated and went to ad firms for which value was not received. There's been a great deal of speculation about whether any of this money found its way back to people who were involved in making these decisions.
Did you ever see anything that would lead you to believe that people in your office, or in the minister's office, received favours from the advertising firms in return for the contracts that were given?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: If people in the sponsorship program received favours? What kinds of favours?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Gifts, trips....
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Usually the staff would receive gifts at Christmas from the advertising firms, things like plants—or a spice rack, I remember we received one year. They were very small tokens. Aside from that, no, I'm not aware of anything else.
Mr. Jason Kenney: The former deputy minister of Public Works, Mr. Quail, testified before this committee and more or less verified what you've said, that Minister Gagliano had a close working relationship with Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay. To the best of your knowledge, was Mr. Quail aware of the regularity of contact between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You don't know. So he wasn't on the agenda in terms of meetings to attend.
I'm sorry, in response to a question from Mr. Guimond, did you say earlier that Mr. Jean Carle visited your office?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, he did.
Mr. Jason Kenney: How frequently?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That would be hard to say. I did see him in the office. As to the frequency, it would be very hard to recollect, because it was a while ago, and Mr. Carle left to go, I believe, to the Banque de développement du Canada at one point.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Were his visits to your office during his tenure at the Prime Minister's Office, or while he was at the Business Development Bank?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I believe it was when he was at the Prime Minister's Office.
Mr. Jason Kenney: I see.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kenney.
Monsieur Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the question I asked you earlier, I would like to come back to Mr. Carle's visits.
I would like to find out how often he came by. Would you say it was once a week, once a month or once every six months? That would give us an idea of how often he came.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I would not say it was once a week, and perhaps not even once a month. I would say that, on average, he came by perhaps once every two months. But then again, I'm not 100 per cent sure.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As far as you can recall, did Mr. Carle come by with a specific purpose? He surely had a good reason to visit. Why, exactly?
Á (1120)
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know. He met with Mr. Guité, but I don't know for what reason. I wasn't told.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The meetings were held behind closed doors; so you did not know what they were about.
Thank you.
I would like to come back to the piece in the Toronto Star. In answer to my first question, you said that you had not made that statement. However, I will do my best to translate the words which, on the face of it, were spoken by a colleague. It was surely someone from your team. Furthermore, what this person said was not called into question, since the statements corroborated some other things you said with regard to the people who called and who intervened.
The anonymous source, who was a woman, said: “When you receive phone calls from politicians who put pressure on you and who have the power to sideline you if you do not obey, it amounts to abuse of power.”
As a member of that team, did you get the same feeling?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The woman also said: “I believe things should be done the right way; however, in those cases, things were not done the way they should have been.” Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: She also said: “I would like to speak up, but because of my job, I will think twice before doing so.” Did you feel the same way before testifying before the committee?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You were never afraid of losing your job?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
[English]
The Chair: You have to answer the question on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: So, what you're saying is that you have come before the committee voluntarily and of your own free will, and that you never feared for your job.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine. I would also like to come back to another event, L'International Bromont. Does that ring a bell?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. Were you at the event? The grant for this event suddenly went from $30,000 to $70,000. Were you at the event?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You were not there. To your knowledge, did this case involve any political pressure? The grant did not go from $30,000 to $70,000 because of divine intervention. Surely there were representations. As far as you know, was there any political interference?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You're not aware of any.
Let's move on to something else. You mentioned a little earlier that representatives from several advertising firms came by. You mentioned Jean Brault, Boulay, Gosselin and Lafleur. As far as you know, were there any others?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes, there was Mr. Tony Blom from Compass Communications based in Halifax.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Once more, was he aware that these agencies or people met with Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So these visits were routine. I'm still talking about frequency... if they came on a routine basis, that's more than often.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Would you please allow her to answer, Mr. Chairman? She was preparing to answer my question.
[English]
The Chair: Your response to the last question.
[Translation]
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Once again, I'll give you an average: once a month, or once every two months.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond.
Mrs. Jennings. You have four minutes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I will come back to the events which occurred before the Sponsorship Program. In his testimony, Mr. Cutler spoke of a meeting on November 17, 1994 which was attended by himself, Mr. Guité and others. At the meeting, Mr. Guité said that the regulations and standards should not apply to advertising, and that he would speak to the minister to have them changed. Were you at that meeting?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: As I told the gentleman earlier, I have no recollection of this whatsoever.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I see. Mr. Cutler spoke of another important meeting. It was held on June 11, 1996. During the meeting, following a complaint Mr. Cutler had filed against Mr. Guité, Mr. Guité notified Mr. Cutler that his, Mr. Cutler's, position had been abolished, that he had been declared redundant. Were you at that meeting?
Á (1125)
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Not to my knowledge, no.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Were you aware of the internal audit report submitted to Mr. Stobbe on June 19, 1996?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I was not.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Were you aware of the fact that, at one point, Mr. Guité decided to force Mr. Cutler to report to Mr. Parent, whose classification was lower than Mr. Cutler's?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I was not.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You were not aware of...
[English]
The Chair: Excuse me, you have to answer on the record, please.
[Translation]
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I was not aware of that.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So you were not aware that Mr. Cutler was at one point asked to report to Mario Parent.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You also never became aware of Mario Parent's classification while you worked in the same section as he did.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I see. You said that three or four people were responsible for managing and administering this section, even though there were more people, a somewhat larger group, and they managed thousands of projects. We know that while the Sponsorship Program was in existence there were thousands of projects. Only those three or four people managed the projects.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That is correct.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And you identified these three or four people in the section: they are Mr. Guité, then his successor Pierre Tremblay, Mr. Gagliano's former chief of staff.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: That is correct.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So there were those two, and who else?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: There was myself, and Ms. Roy when Mr. Tremblay succeeded Mr. Guité.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That would be Isabelle Roy would it not?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I see.
Ms. Phinney was asking questions about the fact that members are occasionally contacted by event organizers and in their turn contact the office. What were the eligibility criteria for projects under this program? What were the evaluation criteria used to determine whether a project would be approved or not? What was the selection process? Normally when someone calls you about a project, this is the information you are supposed to provide so that he or she knows what is going on, right?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Once the selection criteria were established...
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: When was that done?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: After Mr. Tremblay came. Ms. Roy was there. As I said earlier, I was not aware of this, I had not had any input.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So before Pierre Tremblay, there were no eligibility criteria, no evaluation criteria, and no selection process in place.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Madam Jennings.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please, for four minutes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I'd like to start off by asking what I mentioned earlier, about Mr. Guité taking the fall, as it would seem, for this elaborate sponsorship program, this scandal. It's been speculated for a while that the government, if it's involved politically in this scandal, is looking for a fall guy. As we heard in the past about another scandal, that Hughie will take the fall, maybe they're saying Chuckie will take the fall.
Why won't Mr. Guité come immediately to this committee and give testimony? Do you think--
The Chair: You can't ask that question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I take that back. I'm sorry. I thought that would be a fair question. I apologize.
The Chair: I don't think we can be asking the witness whether Mr. Guité will show up or why he won't show up, because he's expected to be here only on April 1.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Toews?
Mr. Vic Toews: I think if Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is asking whether this witness has had any conversations with Mr. Guité about this issue, that might be something else. That would be a proper question to ask.
Á (1130)
The Chair: She has already indicated that she has never had any conversation with a current or former employee of the Government of Canada and so on, but this is Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' time, and you can't ask whether or not she knows why Mr. Guité will or won't show up on April 1.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I apologize for that question. I apologize to the witness.
I'm wondering if you could tell us what Madam Roy's first name is.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Isabelle.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What position is she in now?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: She has left Communications Canada and she is at present working in a new department that was created by the Prime Minister. I'm sorry, I don't know the exact name of it. Emergency....
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Preparedness?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Something like that. I believe that's where she is now.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you have any idea where she came from before she came to...?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: She worked for Mr. Tremblay in the minister's office.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So she came right out of...she was a special adviser or political staff?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: She was an adjointe spéciale. I don't know what that is in English.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So we had someone coming right from Mr. Tremblay's office.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: From the minister's office, yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Out of Minister Gagliano's office--
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --into this position to become part of this group of 14.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Well, there were ten.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How tight was this group? Do you get a feeling that they were all in on it?
The Chair: Excuse me. We don't know what “in on it” means. I think you have to explain yourself a little bit better. You may want to rephrase your question, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I will.
We know from Madam Huguette Tremblay's testimony that Mr. Guité was very involved in this but would appear to have been taking orders from the minister. We know that there was a staff of 14 under Mr. Guité.
My question is does Madam Tremblay have any sense of whether or not this group was working together with full knowledge of what was happening under the orders of Mr. Guité, who was following the orders of Mr. Gagliano? That's a very direct, clear question.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I can answer for myself. Yes, I believe I knew what was going on.
I'm pretty sure Ms. Roy also knew, because she came from the minister's office. She worked for Pierre Tremblay in the minister's office, and then she worked for him in the sponsorship program. So I'm pretty sure she was aware also, but I cannot answer for the other people.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Throughout this period of time you had a fairly responsible position in terms of the sponsorship program and the contracts and understood what was going on, but you also brought some expertise to the area. Do you have any opinion about the commissions that were charged?
This has come up a lot. People have suggested that a lot of this money is justified. But we have big questions about whether the commissions were fair, whether they were appropriate, how they were set, and who set them. Can you elaborate on any of that for us?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I'm not an expert on that. I believe the commissions paid, the 12% that was paid to the agencies, is industry standard. That was the knowledge in the branch, so that's what we paid in commissions for the work that was performed.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
I have one or two questions of my own. On these commissions that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis just talked about, you say 12% is industry standard. The Auditor General pointed out to us that sometimes they just received a cheque and they passed the money on. Did you see the amounts of money being paid to the end recipients? Were you aware of how much money was going to the end recipients?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: To the organizers, you mean?
Á (1135)
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I know that when I would prepare a sponsorship requisition there was so much money given to the organization, and 12% of that was given to the advertising firm for their services.
Before 1998, all moneys were paid directly to the advertising firm, which would then give out the sponsorship amount to the organization. After 1998, Media/IDA Vision was brought into the picture. They were the agency of record for the Government of Canada. They already handled all the advertising placements and payments for the government, and they were given additional responsibilities to make the payments for the sponsorship events.
So what would happen then was that a sponsorship directive was issued to Media/IDA Vision for a sponsored event, and they would bill the government. They were the ones who controlled the money, and not the advertising agency any more. That was as of 1998.
The Chair: But prior to 1998, these invoices that you saw were just for the gross amount of money going to the ad agency. You didn't see the breakdown; you didn't see--
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes. It would say, sponsorship amount, $100,000; agency commission, whatever the amount, and we would pay the full amount to the agency, which would, in turn, give the money to the event organizers.
The Chair: Parliament appropriates funds for each individual program. We vote on that every year, and we allocate, by budget, so much money for this, so much money for that, and so much money for other programs.
Were you aware if you were working within an amount appropriated by Parliament, or how did you see a budget being developed and given to you?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The budget was given to us every April 1, at the beginning of the fiscal year. We were allotted so much money for sponsorships.
The Chair: Okay.
When you mentioned that Mr. Tremblay changed the rules or brought in some rules when he came along, that of course would have changed the relationship with the advertising agencies. Did you advise them of the new rules, or on what basis were they brought up to speed on the new rules?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I didn't personally. I imagine Mr. Tremblay met with them and apprised them of the new procedures that were to be in place.
The Chair: You're not aware of any written communication that went to the ad agencies?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: No, I can't recall.
The Chair: Going back to the two organizational charts that you gave to us as part of your opening statement, first, from 1997 to 1999, you were working for Mr. Guité as the chief of special projects, and then, from 1999 to 2001, you were the coordinator of special projects. Then a new position comes in, manager of sponsorships. Was that Elizabeth Roy?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Isabelle Roy.
The Chair: Isabelle Roy, who came from Mr. Tremblay's political office when he was working with the minister.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Yes.
The Chair: Did she come at the same time as Mr. Tremblay?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Shortly after.
The Chair: Shortly after. Was this additional job because of workload, or do you know why your job seemed to be split in two ways?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know. I think it was a preference of Mr. Tremblay's. I don't have the reasoning for it.
The Chair: Okay, one moment, please.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Could I clarify a point, please?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Further to a question by, I believe, Mr. Mills and Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis, they asked me if I had any contact with people who are to testify before this committee. I had said no. I would like to clarify that.
I have spoken to Mr. Guité on a few occasions in the past couple of months. I'd also like to tell this committee that I speak to Mr. Guité regularly. I would not want you to be under the impression that we have no contact. We are very good friends; we speak regularly.
I know that he has been called to testify. I don't know if and when he will, but I only want to clarify the point that I have spoken with Mr. Guité in the past couple of weeks.
The Chair: When you've been talking with Mr. Guité as a friend, did he coach you in any way, shape, or form as to what to say today?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: The only thing that Mr. Guité told me, when I told him I had appeared a couple of weeks ago, because I spoke to him after the fact, and when I told him that I was appearing here today--and I quote exactly what he told me--was “Huguette, you have to tell the truth, and if you stick to the truth, there won't be any problems. You tell the facts; you tell them what you know.”
Á (1140)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I have one final question. There's a lady by the name of Donna Achimov, who was the executive assistant to Mr. Quail. You mentioned that Mr. Quail seemed to be out of the loop because he was never in your office and he didn't seem to be in any way connected to the process. Was Donna Achimov, in any way, shape, or form, involved in conversations with your office, with Mr. Guité, or Mr. Tremblay? Are you aware if she was involved and aware of what was going on in any way, shape, or form?
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I don't know that she was aware of sponsorships per se when she was in the deputy minister's office, but I know that Donna Achimov worked for Mr. Guité once we became CCSB. She took a position with us. I believe that she was director of public access programs or something to that effect.
The Chair: Okay. I have two points in closing.
One was brought up earlier. If perchance, upon reflection, you find that there's additional information that you would like to communicate to the committee, the clerk will give you his card. You may feel that you can call him or you may write to him, and that will be brought to the attention of the committee.
The other point is, and would everyone please note, that the witness has requested that she doesn't mind being on camera, but she doesn't want to answer questions of the media. She will, therefore, be escorted out of the room and off the premises without having to speak to the media.
I would, therefore, also suggest to you and ask you, if you are called at home or called at work by the media, that you let us know. We do not want you to feel intimidated in any way, shape, or form.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: I have already been approached by several journalists, and I've never answered any questions.
The Chair: Okay. The rule is, of course, if you start talking to one, you'd better talk to them all. That's a good line to adopt.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, I only wanted to raise with the committee the fact that Huguette Tremblay has taken a very courageous stand by coming forward and giving us such frank testimony.
The Chair: I'll get there, I'll get there, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My question is, can we as a committee take extra steps to ensure that there are no repercussions for Madame Tremblay on the job?
The Chair: I'll get there, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I will get there.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, I'm just asking the question.
The Chair: In addition to the media not calling you, of course, we have on the record the assurance from the President of the Treasury Board, supported by this committee, that your career is in no way affected by your testimony this morning or your coming forth voluntarily to speak to this committee.
We'd like to thank you on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, for coming forth and giving us your testimony. We appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Huguette Tremblay: Thank you.
The Chair: There'll be a five-minute recess until we change our witnesses.
Á (1144)
 (1205)
The Chair: Welcome back, everybody.
Now we'll continue on with our orders of the day, chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report.
We have before us the Honourable Diane Marleau, member of Parliament for Sudbury.
Before we start, Madam Marleau, I have a little statement to make, one that you, as a member of Parliament, are likely familiar with:
| ...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 in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury. |
That's from Marleau and Montpetit, page 862, and in no way, shape, or form is it addressed to you specifically. I say that to all witnesses appearing.
There's another question I ask, and that is, have you been coached in your statement in any way, shape, or form, or have you talked to government officials, former government officials, or anybody with knowledge of this, including members of Parliament?
I will go on the record as saying we had a discussion about this a couple of days ago...and Madam Jennings says also.
And of course, as a member of Parliament, you are our colleague, and you would talk to us all the time too, so....
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): That's right.
Are we ready?
The Chair: We're ready. The floor is yours. You have an opening statement, which shall be distributed.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee--
The Chair: Oh, excuse me, but I have to say that this statement is also in one official language.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I was going to make a statement to that effect.
The Chair: Are we able to circulate this in one official language? We had it in French only the last time, and we agreed to circulate it. This one happens to be in English. Can we circulate this one?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
There's one other thing. The law clerk has just advised me that of course you are aware that orders in council have been passed to relieve you from your oath of office--pertaining to this investigation only, of course--and so that we have access to documents. If you feel constrained by your oath, please say so.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I don't.
The Chair: The report is being distributed, and the floor is yours.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
By the way, it brings back some old memories to be sitting in this position as compared to sitting on the other side.
[Translation]
I want to apologize to my colleagues from the Bloc. It was only yesterday afternoon that I decided to appear before the committee, and I did not have very much time to prepare. You will see that my notes are in English only. I don't like to do that, but sometimes we have to move faster than we would like.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I did not speak to any former government people that I was working with when I was Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and I did not do anything more than contact the Prime Minister's office to let them know I would be appearing here. This all happened very quickly, and I made the decision only yesterday afternoon to let my name come forward this quickly.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before you and assist you in any way I can on the issue of the sponsorship file, as reported in the November 2003 Auditor General's report.
I have been in public office since my election to city council in Sudbury in 1980. In that capacity, as chair of the finance committee, I made a name for myself tackling municipal financial problems. I am now in my 16th year as a parliamentarian here in Ottawa and have had the immense privilege of serving as a cabinet minister from 1993 to 1999. I held the portfolios of health, public works and government services, international cooperation, and Minister responsible for la Francophonie.
I believe in getting value for money spent and in ensuring that money the government receives from the Canadian taxpayers is treated with the respect it deserves. Like you, I was shocked and outraged at what the Auditor General outlined in her November 2003 report. I was shocked not only as an elected representative, but as a former Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I've always ascribed to the belief that whatever we spend as a government, we have an obligation to be accountable, open, and transparent in our dealings.
My term as public works minister was brief, from January 26, 1996 to June 11, 1997. While there I did my best to ensure that the department was run with both integrity and an eye to ensuring value for money.
Upon my arrival at the Department of Public Works and Government Services, I made it clear to departmental officials that under my watch all protocols and rules to control expenditures and ensure transparency would be followed. Because integrity was the foundation on which I ran my departments, when I had departments, I'm proud of my record of achievements.
You'll also recall that during my short term at Public Works, the government was involved in some very major files that I was responsible for. Among them was the privatization of the Queen's Printer. That was accomplished during my mandate. The Canada Post mandate review was also accomplished, and the report was released in October 1996.
At the same time, I had responsibility for Canada Mortgage and Housing, and the government had made a decision to transfer the administration of federal social housing to the provinces and territories. I was also involved in that transfer. I also had the immense privilege of watching the Confederation Bridge being built and officially opening it. These are just a few of my responsibilities in that important federal department.
On my views on this particular file, I will confirm that I did sign off on a Treasury Board submission with the Prime Minister in November 1996 to provide the moneys necessary to promote the Canadian identity. I still believe, as I did then, in the importance of ensuring that Canadians know the ongoing role the government plays in their day-to-day lives. I've always operated under the rule that if a program is good, we need to tell Canadians that we're doing it.
 (1210)
I would also like to add at this point that I worked extremely well with Mr. Ran Quail throughout my term at Public Works. I have immense respect for his integrity and for his excellent capabilities as deputy minister. I'm also proud to stand behind Prime Minister Paul Martin's action plan to deal with this issue. The straightforward manner and integrity with which he's dealing with this file is a credit to leadership and to open government.
I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Marleau.
I have just one point on your statement. Regarding the Treasury Board submissions, you said that you did sign off on the submissions “with the Prime Minister”, whereas your opening statement said “former Prime Minister”?
Hon. Diane Marleau: The former Prime Minister, sorry.
The Chair: The former Prime Minister. Thank you very much.
Mr. Toews, please, for eight minutes.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Madame Marleau, and thank you for attending here.
I note one of your final statements, saying that you've always operated under the rule that if a program is good enough to spend taxpayer money on, then Canadians have a right to know about it. I'm sure you would agree that the opposite is true as well, that if it was a bad program—
 (1215)
Hon. Diane Marleau: Absolutely.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.
We've heard today some pretty startling evidence about how the operation of the sponsorship program was run. A career public servant, Huguette Tremblay, came here and gave us some very insightful insider's information.
Madame Marleau, you indicated in a prior interview, in relation to the department:
| And I cleaned it up big time,... But I left in '97 and, sometimes, I think, wouldn't it have been wonderful if I stayed on? Maybe this wouldn't have happened. Who knows? |
| But Chrétien chose to move me out and move Gagliano in. And now we're going to pay for it. |
This was a quote in the The Sudbury Star of 02/11/04.
So you cleaned it up big time. We heard some pretty startling evidence here today that things were done in a deliberately sloppy way inside the sponsorship program, with a lack of a paper trail, verbal instructions, lack of controls, and some backdating of contracts.
Now, between the time you cleaned it up and the Auditor General's report, I just want to point out what the Auditor General stated in her audit dealing with the sponsorship program. She said:
| These arrangements—involving multiple transactions with multiple companies, artificial invoices and contracts, or 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 transactions. |
So somewhere between the time you cleaned it up big time and the Auditor General found big-time problems, something happened. What did you do to clean it up? And maybe we'll get the other half of the answer from somebody else.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Chair, first of all, let me say that the sponsorship program, as it became known, did not exist while I was the public works minister. There was a beginning of a program on Canadian identity, to ensure that the Canada wordmark would start to be present across the country.
My recollections are that there was the Canada Information Office—in French we called it “le BIC”—run out of Heritage Canada, and that we were starting at Public Works, as well, to show the wordmark more clearly on buildings, etc.
Mr. Vic Toews: Perhaps I could just stop you there. That's an important point. So the formal program hadn't been set up in 1996, when you came there.
We heard other evidence from Mr. Cutler that on November 17, 1994, a full year before the Quebec referendum, there was a collapse of the watchdog function inside that office, so that those responsible for giving the contract and those monitoring to see whether there had been value received were collapsed into one function.
Were you aware of that problem, and if so, what did you do about it?
Hon. Diane Marleau: No, I was not aware of that problem at that time. I was aware that there had been new rules put in place for advertising and public opinion research in, I believe, 1994.
My recollection of that particular document was that it was to spread the advertising contracts more evenly. As well, there was something in there that said something about preventing political operatives from working inside and influencing the outcome. I recall that in particular. But do I recall what you're saying? Absolutely not.
Mr. Vic Toews: So you don't recall the collapse--
Hon. Diane Marleau: Remember, I wasn't there until January 1996, so I couldn't tell you about that. I don't know.
Mr. Vic Toews: So that issue, then, of the collapse of the watchdog function in November 1994 hadn't been brought to your attention.
Now, dealing with the influence of political operatives, we heard Huguette Tremblay say today that the minister--at that time, Gagliano--was very directly involved with Mr. Guité in the office, that there was a direct relationship. Mr. Ran Quail, the deputy minister, was essentially shut out of the process.
Did you have that same experience, Madam Marleau, when you were the minister? Did you deal directly with the communications people, if the sponsorship program wasn't there, or did you deal through Mr. Quail when dealing with that particular area?
Hon. Diane Marleau: I did not deal directly with the people from that shop. I insisted that these people report through proper channels, through the deputy minister's office.
Mr. Vic Toews: And that would be, in my experience as a public servant, the proper way to conduct business. When you have a relatively small group of employees...and Mr. Gagliano said he had 90,000 employees, including crown corporations, and a $4 billion budget. So it would strike you as unusual that there would be a direct relationship between a small group of employees well within the department and the minister, would it not?
 (1220)
Hon. Diane Marleau: Yes, it would.
I'm going to add something here. When I first became the Minister of Public Works, a gentleman showed up at my office and said, “By the way, I report here.” That gentleman, sir, was Mr. Guité. I said, “No. A director”--I believe he was a director at the time--“does not report directly to a minister's office.”
Mr. Vic Toews: So he showed up at your office. Did he give you any explanation as to why he showed up at your office, insisting that--
Hon. Diane Marleau: No. He just said that he reported to my office. I said, “Not this office you don't.” I insisted that he report through proper channels, and I actually discussed it with the deputy minister to ensure that he did go through proper channels.
Frankly, I was shocked that this person would purport to report directly to a minister's office. I didn't allow it to happen.
Mr. Vic Toews: All right.
Now, you would have received extensive briefings when you became the Minister of Public Works. Is that not correct?
Hon. Diane Marleau: That's right.
Mr. Vic Toews: Who provided those briefings to you?
Hon. Diane Marleau: It was always the top officials. Now, they would bring in members of the different departments, but that was very much under the direction of the deputy minister and the associate deputy ministers, or the crown corporations and their personnel.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.
Madame Guay, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Marleau, Mr. Jubinville from the Prime Minister's Office says that funding parameters and conditions were established in 1996. You signed the document in question, because you were minister between January 25, 1996 and June 10, 1997. Can you give us any information on this?
Moreover, according to the statements made by Mr. Gagliano, everything was in place when he took over the portfolio. I would like you to provide some information on this issue.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I can tell you that I signed the document in question. I thought it was essential that we talk about the Canadian government not only in Quebec but from coast to coast to coast.
When I became Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the referendum had just taken place. I am a francophone from outside Quebec, and this was a very difficult time for me. It was very important for me to talk about us as the Government of Canada. When I became Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I even asked the deputy minister why we saw no signs on federal buildings when we crossed the bridge to Hull. I was told that there were no such signs. My answer was that we had to show people what was going here. I was told there was no money for a program of that kind. We therefore began to take steps to finance a program of that kind.
Ms. Monique Guay: Ms. Marleau, we are talking about $34 million. Did you monitor where that money was going? That is a lot of money. You saw what happened later. You are telling me that this money was not invested solely in Quebec. I'm sorry to contradict you, but this money was invested primarily—in fact almost exclusively—in Quebec, and through means that were not always above board. Perhaps you should be providing answers on that, rather than on the referendum. How was the money allocated? Did you have control over it? You had to have some rules.
Hon. Diane Marleau: If you remember, one of the roles of the Department of Public Works and Government Services at the time was to provide services to a variety of departments. This included promotional and other services. This is how most contracts were awarded. You know, this happened quite a long time ago, and I'm trying to remember all the individual cases. I do remember some details. We were discussing where we should put the Canadian crest and flag, things like that. It's been quite a while since I was at Public Works. I can talk to you about general issues, but the details are rather vague now.
 (1225)
Ms. Monique Guay: The details are important. These were investments made by your department.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I am just a backbencher. I don't have a lawyer at my sides and I didn't ask the Department of Public Works and Government Services to give me all the documents. I asked the committee clerk to provide me with the documents you have. That is all I have.
You are asking me to remember one program in a department that spent huge amounts of money. I'm sorry.
Ms. Monique Guay: It was my hope that you would have a better recollection of this program. After all, it was a very important program. You administered it for a year and a half. It would have been interesting for us to have a bit more information.
Aside from that, Chuck Guité—you know who I am talking about—used to boast about being in regular contact with the Office of the Prime Minister. I'd like to know what your knowledge of Chuck Guité was at the time.
Hon. Diane Marleau: As I told you, when I arrived, Mr. Guité said that he reported to the office of the Minister. I refused to go along, insisting that he follow the normal program guidelines. I cannot tell you wether he met people every week or not. He did not report to me.
Ms. Monique Guay: To whom did he report? Did he report to your predecessor?
Hon. Diane Marleau: You would have to ask that of the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. They are the ones who decide to whom staff members report. In my view, it was essential that an employee occupying a position such as that of Mr. Guité not report directly to the minister, because that would have the effect of removing various checks and balances, and the sound management of a department is essential. I made my views very clear on that point.
Ms. Monique Guay: Is it the Minister of Finance who established the size of the budget envelope? Was this decided following a discussion you had together? Normally, when one co-signs a document, it means that one is in agreement with the proposal. Who made the decision as to the size of the budget envelope?
Hon. Diane Marleau: It certainly was not the Minister of Finance. Treasury Board representatives would surely have had discussions on the matter. That is the way in which the sums were approved.
Ms. Monique Guay: Did you discuss this with Treasury Board representatives ?
Hon. Diane Marleau: As you know, the program went before Treasury Board. I cannot remember whether there were discussions at the time or not, it is a long time ago. I remember that it did go before Treasury Board. Aside from that, I can't say anything further.
Ms. Monique Guay: We know that memory is a faculty that tends to fail. That is also something we have realized.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I hope that you can remember all the details of things that occurred eight years ago.
Ms. Monique Guay: I remember that I was the critic for Public Works in 1994 and 1995 under David Dingwall and I can still recollect a number of files. So I do have a good memory.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I also have a good recollection of my files but not all the details.
Ms. Monique Guay: You said that you decided to clean things up when you arrived at the Department of Public Works. Can you tell us what you did, exactly?
Hon. Diane Marleau: We insisted that the rules be followed. It is a point that I made in all my meetings with the deputy minister and at all those meetings organized by the deputy minister to brief me. In addition, at one point, we reviewed all the authorities in the department. It was important for me to ensure that there was a review of the delegation of power, and that was something that was done while I was there.
Ms. Monique Guay: I have a bit of time left. I have another question.
In 1996, an investigation was ordered on the management of Chuck Guité's division. I would like to know who ordered this study, what you retained from this study and the corrective measures you suggested.
Hon. Diane Marleau: I must say that I recall something happening there. But do I recall this because I have heard of it since then, or because I truly remember it? It's difficult to say.
You know, when people are called to jury duty, they are always told to not follow the news because they could learn of details that they were perhaps not aware of at the time. At this point in time, I have a heard time knowing to what extent I was aware of all this at the time and to what extent I'm aware of all this right now because of what I've read in the newspapers. It's very difficult for me to tell you.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup, madame Guay.
Ms. Phinney, please, eight minutes.
 (1230)
Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Marleau, for coming here today.
When Mr. Quail was in as a witness—and maybe the chair can correct me if I'm wrong—I think he told us that he wasn't ever consulted about this program, that Mr. Guité did it all and he was never consulted. Was that correct?
The Chair: My recollections were along the line—I'm not going to use the word “never”—that he certainly didn't feel in the loop, maybe even less than that. He was not involved in the administration of this particular program, and it seemed to go on without him. But the actual wording...
Ms. Beth Phinney: I think that's clear enough.
You have said that Mr. Guité did not report to you; he tried, but he didn't report to you. Could you explain again who you think he might have reported to?
Would he have reported to Mr. Quail? Wouldn't that be the logical step for him?
Hon. Diane Marleau: Absolutely, but you have to recall that the program as it became known was not in place at the time that I was there.
Ms. Beth Phinney: For the part of it that was there already, Mr. Cutler made his report, and there was a program there.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Yes, there was advertising and public opinion research being done. As I said, Public Works was doing client services. For the most part, most of these things would have been done at the request of other departments, for instance, Canadian Heritage or Tourism Canada. There was a protocol for dealing with the requests from these departments. I would have insisted that it be followed.
For the program as it became later on, there was a program that became consolidated, to my understanding, at Public Works under Mr. Gagliano, but it was after I left. I can't speak to that because I can't tell you how that program worked. I was not there at the time.
The Chair:
If I can interject, I will read what I have now of the deputy minister's involvement. This is Mr. Quail speaking:
| I'm not sure anybody told me not to get involved. I certainly got involved...in the preparation of the submissions, the listing of the events, and the amount of money in total that was required and where we could find it to make it happen. When it came back into the department, the money was delegated to CCSB. I then expected CCSB to carry out their work according to the rules and regulations for sponsoring the events. |
That's reference 7.1225 of Mr. Quail's testimony.
Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Cutler said that during the time he was there...and we've had witnesses since who said that even during 1998-99 they realized that there was the Department of Public Works and then a little box on the side, and in this little box were people who were doing the activities that were to do more recently with sponsorship, but before that, with other programs. They were in this little box. Were you aware of that little box that was sort of outside...?
Hon. Diane Marleau: I'm aware of a program called APORS, which was in place when I was there, called advertising and public opinion research. I'm aware of that. I'm also of the opinion that while I was there they were reporting through proper channels, I have not been told otherwise. That's all I can say.
The new program, the CCSB, came into being after I left, so I can't tell you how that particular program worked. I can just tell you that APORS was supposed to follow the rules in place, deal directly with the client departments, and do the proper contracting and the proper work. I would have insisted on it if I had known that it wasn't happening.
Ms. Beth Phinney: You're suggesting that you would expect them to be doing their job as they should do it.
Hon. Diane Marleau: That's right, yes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: It's sounding like it's not your job to tell them that, you just expected.... Who do you think, at the beginning--
Hon. Diane Marleau: I did tell them to report through proper channels, and when people report through proper channels, the checks and balances are normally in place to ensure that they are following the rules.
I also, while I was at Public Works, went through all of the signing authorities to make sure that the delegations of authorities were all reviewed and were proper. These are the kinds of things that as a minister you can do. You can also give the message that you must operate in an open and transparent manner, which I did. And you can also show by example that this is the way you're going to operate.
 (1235)
Ms. Beth Phinney: I only have so much time, Madame Marleau.
My next question you jumped on, thinking I wasn't going to ask it or I was implying you were not doing a job, and I wasn't implying that.
You said that they should be operating this way and you told them they should be operating this way. As for this little box--and maybe it's APORS, if that's what it was called--who should have been checking what they were doing? That's what my next question would be.
Hon. Diane Marleau: To be honest with you, the head of APORS was a director. To tell you exactly who his immediate superior was, I'm not sure, but he certainly would have had to report probably through a manager, then on through an associate deputy minister, and through the deputy minister on to me. That would be the normal way that people in a department would report. That would be, in my experience, the way it works.
Normally a director-level employee will not come directly to the minister's office and work directly with the minister without the express permission of the deputy minister and whoever else is his superior or her superior.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Marleau, we would like you to keep your answers as brief and concise as possible. But as a member of Parliament, of course you know how impossible that is.
Ms. Beth Phinney: If the person reporting to you was Dan Quail--
Hon. Diane Marleau: No, Ran Quail. Ranald is his name.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Excuse me, Ran Quail.
So what you're suggesting is that presumably he didn't know about this, or if he did know, he wasn't tell you about how this organization was working outside of the department--
Hon. Diane Marleau: I cannot guess about this. My understanding is that he was doing what he was supposed to do as the deputy minister in running the department.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Do you have any suggestions to us on running the government, as to how we can make sure there can't be a whole group of people and a whole program taken out of a department and moved to the side, with just one person with a staff maybe of 10 people running this...and it doesn't get across into the department? Can you tell us what we could do? Obviously the restrictions and the regulations that you passed down weren't enough. What can we put in there to make sure that doesn't happen again?
Hon. Diane Marleau: That's a very difficult question to answer. I'm a person who follows rules. If the rules don't work, I make new rules and I insist that people follow them. If people don't follow the rules, when you find out about it, you do something about it.
But I can't tell you what to do to ensure in future that these kinds of things don't happen, except to make sure you have the rules in place and that ministers understand that there's a certain protocol and a certain way of behaving, and that's what you do. It's very difficult for me to answer other than that.
Ms. Beth Phinney: What about doing some kind of audit that would go more deeply into the spending?
There has been some suggestion that the auditors shouldn't be working within a department. They should be sent into a department for a year for special audits, or something like that, and not be employees of a department.
Hon. Diane Marleau: My understanding is that internal audits, by and large, are very effective. When the report of an internal audit comes in, the deputy minister would be advised, or the ADM, and then a decision would be made as to how to handle it and how to correct the problems. That has always been my experience in the past.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Phinney.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please, eight minutes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
I want to thank Madam Marleau for appearing before us today. Your testimony is very important for us because you can help us to make the linkages on testimony that we've heard and perhaps direct us to individuals to whom we should speak.
You were a minister at a critical time in the middle of this whole sponsorship fiasco, or file. You also held a couple of other portfolios where there are some linkages and some individuals overlapping in those portfolios.
I want to start by asking if, in fact, you could trace for us Roger Collet's relationship--
 (1240)
Hon. Diane Marleau: I don't know that person exactly. I don't recall that name.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Roger Collet was the head of the Canada Information Office.
Hon. Diane Marleau: He would have worked at Heritage Canada.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then he went to CMHC.
Hon. Diane Marleau: It could be. I don't recall the name. I'm sorry.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Then he was involved with les Jeux de la Francophonie. All of those areas, you had something to do with. I'm wondering if you could give us some information about Roger Collet.
Hon. Diane Marleau: The name doesn't mean anything to me. I'm sorry. He may well have worked in those areas, but I don't recall the name per se. I don't recall ever having dealings with him. It doesn't mean that I didn't, but I don't recall.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You don't recall discussions with colleagues or in-caucus discussions in terms of Honourable Denis Coderre and his political assistant?
The Chair: I think that you can scratch the “in-caucus” part. Perhaps the rest of it is okay, but the caucus question is not.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, that's fine.
His name never came up.
Hon. Diane Marleau: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right.
Hon. Diane Marleau: It's not a name that I know.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You speak very highly of Ran Quail.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You know, from some of our testimony, that we had a very frustrating experience with Mr. Quail. We can't say that he didn't tell the truth, but he answered questions in a way that clearly kept the truth from us. We found, in terms of ministerial responsibility and what that means in terms of a deputy, that he was lacking in many regards.
Why do you feel so strongly about him? Wouldn't you expect, having worked with him, that he would answer more forthrightly and give us a clearer indication?
Hon. Diane Marleau: I watched his testimony, and I felt his frustration. That's about all I can say, because I found him to be an extremely good deputy minister, extremely capable. I have nothing but good things to say about my time working with him. That's all I can say.
It's hard for me to tell you what happened after I left, because I don't know.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you think that, since you've been a minister and you're held responsible for your department, your deputy minister is also responsible for whatever happens?
Hon. Diane Marleau: The deputy minister is held responsible by the Clerk of the Privy Council to administer the programs that are put under his direction in accordance with the minister he works with. It's a partnership. That's about as much as I can say otherwise.
I felt sorry when I heard his frustration during his appearance before the committee. That's all I can say.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to ask about this disturbing phenomenon we're hearing about, of ministers not really knowing about audits that are happening in their own departments or not taking action on those audits. We have the example...I think there was a request earlier about the 1996 audit vis-à-vis advertising and public opinion research. You were the minister at the time that audit was begun.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Can I just say something here? I think I remember the audit going on, but I only think I remember. Since then I've read the audit and I've heard about it in the press, and it's difficult for me to differentiate things in my mind. Did I really know everything about it then, or have I just learned about it recently? That's always the problem when you have a witness who comes forward after the fact and has sort of followed the story as it goes. I'm sitting there saying to myself, did I really know about it? I think I did. But as I said, there were many very big files I was dealing with when I was at Public Works, and this would have been only one small one.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It just seems that there are so many times you hear about audits being done and ministers not executing their responsibilities but in fact sort of covering up the results of these audits. I want to make the linkage here to your work as minister--
 (1245)
Hon. Diane Marleau: I really resent that. I don't think ministers would cover up the results of audits. I think ministers would take action to deal with the results of audits, and that's my recollection of any of these kinds of issues.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, let's not use the words “cover up”. I think it's a matter of audits being done, wrongdoing being found, and then ministers not doing anything about it, not making the necessary changes.
I want to come to another audit--
Hon. Diane Marleau: Well, I'm sorry. You're making accusations and we don't know whether they did or not. They may well have made the necessary changes. I can't tell you for sure; I don't know.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I guess we'll hear more testimony about that later on, but we have some evidence now to suggest that the 1996 audit in the advertising and public opinion research branch was basically disregarded and ignored and that nothing happened. Otherwise, we might not have the problem we have today. There was a similar incident in which you were involved pertaining to an audit in Health Canada, exactly the same situation, where in fact wrongdoings were identified. You--
The Chair: How did we get over to Health Canada from here?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to get to that, Mr. Chair.
I want to make two points. One is that the minister here is a link between two very similar scandals, where in fact audits were done and ignored. It happened in Health Canada and it happened in Public Works. Then I want to raise the fact that the minister leading into and leading out of these particular difficult positions was the Honourable David Dingwall.
My question was whether or not the minister today, Madam Marleau, felt that in fact she was brought in at times to sort of just paper over and be a--
An hon. member: I have a point of order.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. When I interrupt you, pay attention to the chair.
On your question regarding an audit at Health Canada, you are only drawing inferences and parallels. It has nothing to do with the investigation at hand.
Ms. Marleau, you don't have to answer that in any way, shape, or form or make reference to it unless you want to. I'm sure you will speak to the papering over; I'm sure you will have something to say on that.
Ms. Marleau.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Chair, I've always been a very active minister in whatever file I took over. At Health Canada, as you know, I was a great defender of the Canada Health Act and did a number of things there. I certainly have nothing to be ashamed of in any department I was in, and you heard me recite some of the things I did in the year and a few months I was at Public Works. Those are just a very few of the things I was involved in. I'm very proud of what I did as a minister, and I certainly didn't paper over anything. I did the job I was given to do.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
I'm cognizant of the time. The meeting ends at 1 o'clock and we've had one round. The question I have for the committee is, would we like Ms. Marleau to come back again or do we discharge the witness? How do you feel?
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, I certainly have more questions to ask of the minister. Her testimony has certainly piqued my curiosity in respect of a number of matters, and as a minister of the Crown who was responsible for the department where we saw the growth of this problem, the few minutes we've had is simply not enough. I would prefer that we reserve the right to call her back.
The Chair: It is appropriate that we do feel that the questions are answered. We're going to put you down to return for maybe an hour.
Would one hour be sufficient?
Mr. Vic Toews: I think so. On the basis of what I've heard here today, an hour would be sufficient.
The Chair: Okay, so you can expect to be called back for an hour, Ms. Marleau, at a later date to continue on. You don't have to make another opening statement; we'll just continue on with the questions.
I basically have one question of my own. Again, this deals with the sponsorship program, the communications, Groupaction, Lafleur Communications, Media/IDA Vision, and all these advertising agencies. Are you aware of any connections, when you moved on to another department, between your subsequent ministries and anything going on, any work being done with these organizations?
 (1250)
Hon. Diane Marleau: I don't recall definitely anything. I'm sure there was work being done, but I can't recall definite instances.
The Chair: Okay.
Thank you again. You are discharged for the moment. We'll call you back. There's no need for you to stay.
But I am going to introduce to the committee Mr. Paul Levine, a partner from KPMG Forensic, from Montreal, Quebec. I would ask Mr. Levine to tell the committee how he sees that he can assist us in our work.
Mr. Levine, please.
Mr. Paul Levine (Forensic Auditor, KPMG): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Paul Levine. I'm a partner with KPMG in the Montreal office. I'm a partner in forensic and investigative accounting.
KPMG has just recently been engaged by the Library of Parliament to assist the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with the various tasks that are before the committee. We'll be providing assistance as an active member of the team, helping the researchers, helping the clerks, the chair, and various other members in terms of analyzing documentation, reviewing the documentation, preparing for the appearance of witnesses, and as well, planning. We plan to be here as an active member of the team and to assist in all manners possible in analyzing, linking the different data, and preparing for testimonies.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Levine. As you pointed out, you are working for the committee, and I think it's appropriate that any member of the committee be able to contact you freely.
Members will get the coordinates from Mr. Levine and his assistants, who I introduced the other day.
In the interests of being non-partisan...not that I would suggest that you divulge every detail of a conversation, but if you are giving a clear line of evidence to some person, you have to make sure it's available to all the people, that you don't in essence become the staff researcher for one MP on the committee, that all MPs know. If he is going down a certain line of investigation on your behalf, he has an obligation to share that with other members so that we operate in a non-partisan spirit as far as the investigation is concerned. But you certainly don't have to report word for word.
I think you understand the intent of what I'm saying. Of course, we rely on your professionalism, which we know is there.
Mr. Toews, you had something to say.
Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, thank you. It's along the lines of what you said. You said the first half. The second half is, given Mr. Levine's professional expertise as an auditor, he may recognize things that people of my limited skills simply don't have the ability to recognize, that isn't apparent to someone like me. So I would encourage you and your staff to feel free to point out issues and develop those issues for our consideration.
I know Mr. Walsh and the parliamentary staff have been very good in that respect. I appreciate that, and I certainly hope you continue along that line.
Welcome aboard.
Mr. Paul Levine: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get a better understanding here. Has any direction been given to our team players now to look at?
The Chair: Not at this point in time. They're still trying to amass, understand, and read all the data that has come to the committee. They have not been given any specific direction to go in any specific way.
Mr. O'Neal has something to say on this issue.
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I will be extracting the portions of the contract that lay out the scope of work that the forensic auditors will be asked to do, and sending an extract of that to committee members so they will have a clear idea of what their duties will be.
The Chair: Any member of the committee should feel free to contact the auditors, but knowing full well that they have an obligation to share information with other members, so that the auditors don't start working for any particular member. That's quite important.
You're here to assist. We will develop a plan with you, but we're looking for your guidance to come forward to us.
Madam Jennings, do you have a point?
 (1255)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This does not have to do with the assistance we'll be receiving from the Auditor General, but with the motion that was adopted—
The Chair: Auditor General?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Sorry, with the forensic auditors. It was a lapse.
It has to do with the motion that was adopted unanimously to hold two days of hearings on Tuesday, April 13, and Wednesday, April 14, and that on April 14 our researchers, primarily, and the clerks provide us with a submission for a first report.I think we need to provide some guidance to our researchers as to what needs to be in the report, because it's not a summary of evidence, but it's an actual first draft.
The Chair: Okay. We've got all of that on the record.
This meeting is now adjourned.