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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 6, 2004

1535

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC))

1540

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)

1545

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault

1550

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1555

The Chair

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons)

The Chair

M. Jean-Marc Bard (À titre individuel)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1600

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1605

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1610

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans)

M. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

M. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

M. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

M. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

1615

M. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1620

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Le président

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1625

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

1630

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1635

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1640

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1645

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1650

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

1655

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1700

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1705

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1710

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

1715

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

1720

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

1725

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

1730

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

1735

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 044

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 6, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Order. Good afternoon, 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 witness this afternoon is Mr. Jean-Marc Bard, as an individual.

I've had notice of a point of privilege by Mr. Toews, but before I go there, I'll table the correspondence I've received.

Dated May 6, this comes from the Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services, addressed to Mr. Jeremy LeBlanc, the clerk of the standing committee:

Dear Mr. LeBlanc:

At its hearing of April 20, 2004, the Standing Committee requested a copy of minutes of two meetings which were organised by Pierre Tremblay, former Executive Director of the Communications and Coordination Services Branch with the heads of certain advertising agencies in 2000.

Enclosed in both official languages is a document entitled “Lac Carling Retreat”, with minutes of a meeting held on September 21, 2000 between Mr. Pierre Tremblay and the heads of advertising agencies. We conducted a thorough search of our records to retrieve documents related to a second meeting with the heads of advertising agencies, and have been unable to locate documents relating to a second meeting.

I trust this will be satisfactory to the committee.

And it's signed by someone for Mr. Marshall. So that's tabled as a public document, and distributed.

Mr. Toews, you have a point of privilege.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a matter of privilege.

I've previously expressed concern about the fact that the committee has on it three members of the Privy Council. Given the mandate of this committee, there's a strong perception of bias in having these members of the Privy Council essentially investigating the government. Today in question period this apprehension of bias in fact became a reality, a real bias. When the opposition asked the government to explain its actions in regard to the public accounts committee and its investigation into the sponsorship affair, Mr. Lastewka, one of the three privy councillors on this committee, responded for the government. The questions and the response form the basis of the matter of privilege, given that context.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy stated:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister initially pledged to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, and we should be able to trust the word of a prime minister.

First, his Liberal majority blocked production of the Gagliano papers. Then the government blocked release of Privy Council briefings on the sponsorship program. Now it has moved to cut off evidence even though the clerks say there are at least 90 witnesses not yet heard from.

Why has the Prime Minister broken his word to Canadians?

Whether or not we want to agree with the preamble or the answer, the reality here is that Mr. Lastewka is answering for the government, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. So the parliamentary secretary of the department we're investigating is getting up and answering this question.

Mr. Lastewka replied:

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear. The opposition blocked having Mr. Guité's testimony made public. It tried to stop Mr. Guité from coming here for two days. In fact, it insulted the government by saying that he would never appear, and he did appear. He was a very valuable and key witness.

The opposition also tried to block Mr. Quail from coming to the committee. I am very disappointed that this morning the member even tried to filibuster to stop the Auditor General from being there.

Now, we know that last statement simply is not true. But aside from the truth of the statements, we have here the parliamentary secretary, on this committee, responding to the opposition questions with respect to this matter.

Mrs. Ablonczy went on, and stated:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been watching the committee and they know that is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

Even though there are plenty of stones unturned, at least 90 unheard witnesses, the Liberals are using their controlling numbers to force through some kind of report for the purposes of a June election.

What does that say about a Prime Minister who breaks his word and cuts off 90 witnesses who could get to the truth about ad scam?

The question is directed to the government, and who responds, Mr. Chair? Well, the Honourable Walt Lastewka. And I notice that none of the parliamentary secretaries at this committee use the term “Honourable” before their names. It's the practice in every other committee to do that, but they do not do that.

At any rate, the Honourable Walt Lastewka, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, goes on to state:

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said today that she was pleased with the work that the government has put into place: the inquiry, the RCMP, and the forensics.

In fact, she even said very clearly that we need to understand what the responsibilities of a minister are and what the responsibilities of a deputy minister are, and get to the root of the cause. That is exactly what the opposition is trying not to do.

Again, we have the member on this committee speaking on behalf of the government.

Then Mr. Jason Kenney stated:

Mr. Speaker, here is a motion that I put forward yesterday at the public accounts committee:

The Chair: Order, please!

Mr. Vic Toews: And he quoted the motion:

That the Committee request copies of notes taken by the Clerk of the Privy Council during meetings with the Prime Minister pertaining to items raised in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the...Report of the Auditor General....

Every single Liberal member voted against the motion, including three privy councillors.

What is the government trying to hide?

Note the question, Mr. Chair. It's directed at the government.

What is in those notes that is too damaging to be released? ... Why does the government not want Canadians to know the whole truth?

Who responded on behalf of the government? The Hon. Walt Lastewka, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the department we're investigating, and a member of this committee.

Mr. Chair, we heard this morning about the problems with ministerial accountability and the accountability of deputy ministers. Here we have a flagrant example of how the minister and this government are abusing parliamentary privilege.

What does Mr. Lastewka say?

Mr. Speaker, I find that surprising from the member opposite who also tried to not have the Auditor General appear and not to have key witnesses appear. In fact, Dr. Franks said today that the public accounts committee now faces the question of what ought to be the ministerial and deputy ministerial responsibilities and accountability of the government to Parliament. That is exactly what we need to be doing on the public accounts committee, not the politicking that those members are trying to put forward in that committee.

He's quoting from the witness who talked about ministerial responsibility. He's speaking on behalf of the government, the member who's investigating what the government did in this issue.

There's one last question from Mr. Kenney:

Mr. Speaker, do we want a cover-up because we want to hear from 90 more witnesses before drawing conclusions?

I have a question directly for the Prime Minister. Why did his committee members vote against a motion to release notes taken by the clerk of the Privy Council of meetings held with him and his predecessor regarding the sponsorship scandal?

Will he, if he does not agree with his committee members, agree to release those notes so Canadians can know what he and his predecessor knew about the scandal and just what they did about it? Will he release those notes?

So we have Mr. Kenney asking the government to release those.

Who answers for the government? It's not a surprise by now, Mr. Chair: the Hon. Walt Lastewka, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have allowed the cabinet documents to be released. In fact, we have three and a half feet of documents to read. The opposition is not even going through the documents. It is not trying to get down to the root cause.

Various media and people....

Apparently, Mr. Lastewka doesn't consider media and people to be the same thing.

...have said that it is time to have the research synopsis of these last number of months and let us get down to the root cause. Let us not delay and delay, and have the politicking that the opposition tries to do all the time.

That is the basis of my point of privilege. My privileges are being breached by the parliamentary secretary on this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, do you wish to respond?

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): It's obvious that Mr. Toews can't stand the truth, and that's what it is. Questions were asked in question period. My responsibility as the parliamentary secretary when the minister is away is to fill in for the minister. I think it's very disappointing that Mr. Toews would bring that up again. You asked the questions. The answers were given directly to you. I don't see any breach of privilege at all.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: The matter does give me some concern. First of all, we were dealing in question period with a matter coming out of the public accounts committee. If I recall what you said, Mr. Toews, a couple of times Mr. Lastewka appeared to be commenting on behalf of the committee. But only committee chairs can speak to the House of Commons regarding committee business. Therefore, Mr. Lastewka did not have the authority to speak on behalf of the public accounts committee. If a question is addressed to the public accounts committee in the House of Commons, that can only be answered by the chair. If a question is directed to any other committee, it can only be answered by the chair, not by a member of the committee.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chair--

The Chair: No, you've had your time.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Well, I--

The Chair: Thank you very much, but you've had your time.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: But you gave a rebuttal, and I don't think it's right--

The Chair: I'm not giving you a rebuttal; I'm just giving you my opinion.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: No, you did.

The Chair: I just said that you're not a committee chairman, so you cannot speak in the House of Commons on behalf of the committee. The rules are quite specific. Only committee chairs can speak in the House of Commons.

I just said that Mr. Lastewka cannot speak on behalf of this committee. I didn't say that he did. I'm just pointing out that fact. So I'll just get on with my ruling without interruption, please.

The other issue, of course, and it has been raised, is that this is the first time parliamentary secretaries have been sworn in as privy councillors and have a seat at the cabinet table. Then, by virtue of the fact that you're sworn in as a member of the Privy Council and have a seat at the cabinet table, you are bound by cabinet solidarity. Cabinet speaks with one voice. Therefore, if this committee or any particular member of this committee has an independent, individual opinion, cabinet ministers, by virtue of their collective responsibility and cabinet solidarity, are not entitled to have individual opinions on matters of government policy.

Therefore, it strikes me that while Mr. Toews raised this issue some time ago, about privy councillors sitting at this table and investigating a serious matter with the government, I thought as long as they were not responding on behalf of the government in the House on this particular issue, we could perhaps move along. However, today there was no question that Mr. Lastewka was speaking on behalf of the government.

If Mr. Toews said it correctly, I think a question was addressed to the Prime Minister, by Mr. Kenney. I believe Mr. Lastewka responded on behalf of the Prime Minister. He was speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister....

No, no, he said that.

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Not necessarily, Mr. Chair, not necessarily.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but Mr. Lastewka is a member of the Privy Council.

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): So is Stephen Harper...[Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: No, these people have a seat at the cabinet table, and there is cabinet solidarity.

Finally, Mr. Lastewka, I think you have to answer to this committee about what I perceive to be a very serious conflict of interest that you have. If you decide you're going to answer questions on behalf of the government in the House of Commons, your position is determined to be supportive of the government, because you're not allowed any other position. That is part of our democratic process. We heard it this morning from Professor Franks and Professor Boyer.

My question to you, Mr. Lastewka, is how do you perceive this conflict of interest that you are speaking on behalf of the government, defending the government, in answering questions from this committee, from members, and at the same time speaking in this committee as an individual member? It's a conflict of interest.

I've asked Mr. Lastewka to respond.

Hon. Robert Thibault: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I fail to see how Mr. Lastewka all of a sudden becomes a witness questioned by the chair. I fail to see how that has happened.

The point of privilege was raised, a defence was lodged, and you have absolutely the right to make a judgment. I think there then should be an opportunity, if people disagree with your judgment, to make that known, but I fail to see how he becomes a witness and is grilled by the chair.

It is possible for a member of this committee or for an MP to walk and chew gum at the same time, to be both a parliamentary secretary and a member of the committee.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm getting more confused here. It seems to me that when we get asked questions about things that--

The Chair: Are you dealing with the point of privilege raised or are you off on some tangent?

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, I'm being very specific to your interpretation.

The Chair: Okay. Be specific.

Mr. Dennis Mills: We are all asked questions all the time about matters that go on in this committee, and we always respond. Quite frankly....

First of all, Mr. Lastewka is not a minister, and I don't see any difference between Mr. Lastewka answering a question that's put to him and any one of us, on any side of this House. You are very free to go out at the end of every committee meeting and say whatever you want to say. Why should any one of us not have an opportunity to respond when we get asked questions?

The Chair: And of course you do, Mr. Mills. Everybody has that opportunity. But I made the clear distinction--

Mr. Dennis Mills: What is that?

The Chair: --of cabinet solidarity.

Mr. Dennis Mills: He's not a cabinet minister.

The Chair: The cabinet speaks with one voice, and when questions are addressed to the government in question period, it is the government that decides who will speak on behalf of the government. Nobody in opposition....

No, I'll get to you in a minute. I'm responding to Mr. Mills.

Nobody can ask questions of anybody on the government side...except the government. We cannot address questions to you, from the opposition side, or anybody else; we can only ask questions to the government or committee chairs--nobody else.

Those are the rules. The government decides who speaks on their behalf. Mr. Lastewka spoke on behalf of the government this afternoon. That is the issue.

Mr. Dennis Mills: So you'd like a person who wasn't a member of the committee to respond.

The Chair: It's up to the government to decide who shall respond. It's not for us to determine who does. As you know, many questions are asked of ministers, and someone else responds. That is the rule. Mr. Lastewka spoke on behalf of the government this afternoon, on this investigation.

Madam Jennings and then Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman--

The Chair: No, Madam Jennings first.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, I'm sorry.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed in you. This issue was already brought before the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker of the House already disposed of the issue. It was brought by either members of this committee, opposition members, or members of their particular party. So by again raising the issue in your comments, you are questioning a ruling by the Speaker.

That Mr. Toews raises it in a question of privilege, I don't have a problem, but that the chair then, in his comments, questions a ruling of the Speaker of the House on this very issue...I find it very disappointing on your part. That's one.

Two, even were this not an issue that had indeed been disposed of by the Speaker of the House, this member, Mr. Lastewka, answered with facts in response to questions of members of this committee in the House. Whether it was on behalf of government or not, he answered with facts.

It is a fact that all members of the opposition--

The Chair: Okay, Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm not finished, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The facts are not in dispute here. It's an issue of Mr. Lastewka--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, may I finish?

The Chair: Madam Jennings, you could conclude by saying that you do not dispute, or that Mr. Lastewka believes the facts are...but we're not talking about the facts in terms of the questions and the answers. That could be debated all day. We're talking about the fact that Mr. Lastewka sits here and speaks on behalf of the government at the same time--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And the Speaker of the House already ruled and said it was not a conflict. Therefore, you should simply confirm that the Speaker has already disposed of this and rule Mr. Toews' point of privilege out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

The Speaker ruled that it was the procedure and House affairs committee that decided the makeup of this committee. The Speaker did not rule that it was perfectly A-OK for cabinet members who sit here to speak on behalf of the government and then at the same time put forth a position at this committee.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could suggest, through you, that the law clerk give an opinion on this.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Does the law clerk have an opinion on this?

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, I of course would have no substantive comment with regard to the matters being debated by the members, but I would draw to the committee's attention not only the fact that the Speaker addressed this question before in the House...and I don't recall that he addressed the issue of conflict so much as he pointed out that the membership of committees is determined initially by the procedure and House affairs committee, it reports to the House, and the House adopts the report. So it is the House that makes the membership of this committee.

From memory, I can't recall whether Mr. Lastewka, at the time that report was adopted, was already a member of the Privy Council. I gather he was. In any event, it's a House order that you're talking about.

Second, with regard to the propriety of Mr. Lastewka answering a question in question period while being a member of this committee, I would have thought that a matter pertaining to the rules of question period might properly be the subject of a point of order in the House with regard to question period, and the Speaker would be the one to rule on it.

With regard to the question of bias and privilege, as Mr. Toews has raised it, it is, of course, the prerogative of the committee to address such questions when a member feels there is an instance of bias or privilege of a kind that impairs the committee's business. Presumably, the committee then would make a report to the House in that regard and call upon the House to take some action, as the committee would recommend.

Those, I think, are the only three comments I would have.

The Chair: I'm going to close the matter there. I think I've heard from all sides.

Mr. Toews, as far as your personal privileges are concerned, I'm not sure they have been violated. Therefore, I would rule that there is no point of privilege here.

We'll now turn to our witness, Mr. Jean-Marc Bard.

Our process is that we first welcome you to the committee, and we'll ask you to take the oath. I believe the Bible is in front of you, if you could take the oath, please.

[Translation]

M. Jean-Marc Bard (À titre individuel): I swear that in my testimony before you I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I read this for everyone who appears before this committee:

...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 comes from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit, page 862.

In addition, Mr. Bard, you are appearing before us as an individual this afternoon. Did you discuss or have any meetings with any employees of the Government of Canada or any members of this committee, or former members of the Government of Canada or committee, in preparation of your report before coming to this meeting?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, I didn't.

The Chair: And finally, has legal advice been provided or paid for by the authorization of any official in the Treasury Board Secretariat or the Department of Public Works and Government Services, or in any other government department or agency?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, it hasn't.

The Chair: Okay, and you don't have a lawyer here this afternoon either.

I believe you have an opening statement. The floor is yours.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to set out for you the various roles that I played in minister Gagliano's office from my hiring, in September 1997, until January 2002, that is to say over a period of a little less than four and a half years.

From September 1997 until approximately September 1999, I held the position of Senior Special Assistant and, as such, took care of Crown corporations such as the Canada Lands Company, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Defence Construction Canada and the Old Port of Montreal Corporation.

My duties entailed being the liaison officer between the minister and the Crown corporations with regard to the policies and issues that the latter wished to draw to the attention of the minister. Here are a few examples: Canada Post, the location of mail boxes; the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, social housing and housing coop associations; the Canada Lands Corporation, the development of various surplus lands within the territory.

[English]

From September 1999 to January 2002, I served as executive assistant to Minister Gagliano, replacing Pierre Tremblay, who became acting executive director for CCSB. My duties as executive assistant included staffing and managing the minister's office. This included the day-to-day operation, working with staff on various regional files, attending briefings with the minister, meeting with senior departmental officials, and reviewing cabinet documents.

I would like to explain the process we followed when the minister's office received sponsorship requests, whether it was directly from event organizers or from members of Parliament. All requests received by assistants in the minister's office were transferred to the special assistant responsible for office administration. During my time as executive assistant, the office administration job was held by two different civil servants and by one exempt staff.

º (1600)

[Translation]

One of the responsibilities this position entailed, particularly with regard to sponsorships, was to ensure that the information received was sufficient for forwarding to the Communications Coordination Services Branch, or CCSB. The information required included, among other things, the date of the event, a brief description, its purpose and, often, the amount of money requested. Every week I met each one of the assistants individually in order to go through with them the various files and to discuss their concerns regarding different issues.

[English]

This included meeting with the special assistant responsible for the administration of the office who handled the sponsorship requests, among other responsibilities. As with the other assistant, I met with this assistant once a week, or when need be, to go over the files. At this point, I was informed about the sponsorship requests received by the minister's office.

The assistant would then forward the request to CCSB for analysis. The assistant was also responsible for following up with CCSB on the status of the request to give the requester an update when needed.

[Translation]

With regard to chapter 3 of the Auditor General's report in particular, I wish to insist that at no time did the minister's office exert even the slightest pressure on the executive director of CCS in order that certain files take priority over others or receive preferential treatment.

A minister's office greatly resembles a customer service bureau. Once apprised of citizens' interventions, the minister's office relays the question to the managers originally identified by the deputy minister.

In closing, I would like to add that the chief of staff or political attaché who attends a meeting in the presence of the minister and of the senior public servants must do so as support staff or as a witness to the event but is not called upon to play an active role as a participant in the decision-making.

I was anxious to supply these details pertaining to the workings of the minister's office for purposes of clarification and also to help you appreciate that the role of the chief of staff is not aimed at decision-making but at coordination.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bard. I have a copy of Mr. Bard's opening statement. It's not fully bilingual. It's about 50% English, 50% French. Is it agreeable that I distribute this, or do I withhold it from the members?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is agreed. Okay, we will distribute. Copies are available. You will get them delivered to you.

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

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Bard, for coming here today.

You were working in Minister Gagliano's office as both the special assistant from 1997 and then the executive assistant from September 1999 to January 2002.

Yesterday we heard from the deputy minister, Mr. Ran Quail, and he gave his most unequivocal evidence in response, to date, that the sponsorship program was really a political operation.

Mr. Gagliano's fingerprints were all over this file. Mr. Gagliano had indicated he only met with Mr. Guité two or three times a year. Other evidence that we've heard is that Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Guité met much more often, perhaps as often as two or three times a week.

You are no stranger to politics. You were a key fundraiser for the Liberal Party in Quebec. You were the go-to guy for the sponsorship files. You were one of the people who was identified by John Grant when he blew the whistle on Mr. Gagliano's practices.

Tell me, have you read any of the evidence that your former boss, Mr. Gagliano, gave to the committee?

º (1605)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, Mr. Chair, I did read Mr. Gagliano's testimony to the committee. In connection with the member's consideration and comments, I would like to point out again that I arrived as executive assistant when Mr. Guité went into retirement.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right.

So then you don't know anything about the meetings between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano at all. You know nothing about them.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Honestly, I don't, because when the minister was in Ottawa, when the House was in session, Mr. Gagliano spent most of his time, if not all of his time, here in his office at the Parliament buildings. I was based in Hull. I had no reason, when I was senior assistant, to come to Parliament unless I was requested by the minister to attend as a witness or as support staff any meeting that he might have had with senior civil servants or private people.

Mr. Vic Toews: So you don't know anything about any meetings between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano, even though you were, from September 1997, I think your evidence was, in charge of staffing and management of the minister's office.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Not from September 1997. It was 1999. The first two years that I was with Mr. Gagliano starting in September 1997 I was senior assistant to Mr. Gagliano and had nothing to do with sponsorship. I had very little to do with government operations except being responsible for or being the person who received information from crown corporations concerning the minister's responsibility either to take to Treasury Board or elsewhere.

Mr. Vic Toews: You're telling us you had nothing to do with any of the sponsorship files until September 1999 when you became the executive assistant to Mr. Gagliano, and at that time—

The Chair: Just a second, you can't nod. Is it a yes or a no?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I know that, but his question wasn't terminated.

Mr. Vic Toews: I've terminated now. Yes or no?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'm telling you that from September 1997 to September 1999 I had nothing to do with the sponsorship files. I didn't even have knowledge of what the major files were as far as sponsorship was concerned.

Mr. Vic Toews: You had nothing to do with Mr. Guité.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I had nothing to do with Mr. Guité either.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. Let's go on to September 1999 when you became the executive assistant to Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Tremblay became the executive director of the sponsorship file. Then did you have contact with Mr. Tremblay regarding the sponsorship file?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I did.

Mr. Vic Toews: How often would you meet with Mr. Tremblay regarding sponsorship files?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: As often as needed, but I would like to explain this answer. I have explained in my opening statement that the minister's office received requests either from members of Parliament or from people from various ridings, from various organizations from various ridings, in the country requesting sponsorship amounts.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. We heard that evidence already. You've given that evidence.

You then took those requests that were given to the minister and you communicated them to Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, I took these requests, and the ones that came directly to me were given to the special assistant responsible for the office management. The special assistant responsible for the office management, over the two years and three or four months that I was executive assistant, for the first, I would say probably, year and a half was a civil servant, a person who used to be in charge of the minister's correspondence—

º (1610)

Mr. Vic Toews: What was his name?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Her name. I'm sorry, I'll have to check.

Mr. Vic Toews: You don't remember.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I remember. I know her very well, but I want to make sure I give you the right name. Her name was Joanne Bouvier. The first person who sat in that seat was Joanne Bouvier. She had been a civil servant at Public Works for many years. She would inform me of the content of these sponsorship requests, and you have to understand also that the sponsorship requests that were received at the minister's officer were, most of the time, for very small amounts and they were, most of the time, for regional organizations for various celebrations of whatever anniversaries for certain towns or cities and so on.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I'm not concerned right now about the amounts. I'm concerned about the process. That's what I'm trying to figure out. The process was it came to the office, you communicated it to this assistant, to Joanne--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: This assistant very often got it directly when it came in through the mail.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. So the minister had no contact at all. Are you aware of any meetings that Mr. Tremblay and the minister would have had in respect of the sponsorship file?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: We had meetings, and I was present occasionally with Mr. Tremblay and the minister and this—

Mr. Vic Toews: How many times would those meetings occur?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: How many times? I'm kind of at a loss to be able to state how many times, but I would say, if my memory serves me well, that Mr. Tremblay would produce a report every second or third month. He would produce a report fundamentally in three phases: the sponsorships that were granted, the sponsorships that were under study, and the sponsorships that were refused.

Mr. Vic Toews: All right. I know about the reports.

How many times did Mr. Tremblay meet with Mr. Gagliano in the course of a year, on average?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I can't answer that question on how many times as a specific answer. I'm telling you he was producing reports every second or third month, and then he would come and explain to us what the amount of money spent was and what was left to be spent on the sponsorship program.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bard, for appearing before us.

If I understand correctly, in the first stage of your career, you were responsible for coordination with Crown corporations: the Old Port of Montreal Corporation, CMHC, the Canada Lands Company. Is that the case?

M. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: In answer to numerous questions coming from reporters, at the very beginning of the sponsorship file—or, I should say, the sponsorship scandal—when the committee's work began, Prime Minister Martin mentioned that there had certainly been political direction in the sponsorship scandal. Would you be able to comment on this statement by Prime Minister Martin?

M. Jean-Marc Bard: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. No more than I would be able, based upon the information that I used to prepare for my appearance before you today, to evaluate such a thing. I have never been an elected representative and I have never participated, closely or remotely, to the establishment of such a program.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will now deal with more specific cases. Around June 2, 1998... If I mention the Gespro firm, does that mean anything to you?

M. Jean-Marc Bard: The name means nothing to me, but if you proceed with your question...

Mr. Michel Guimond: If I mention the name of Robert Charest, does that mean anything to you?

M. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I know Mr. Charest.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Is it true that Robert Charest is Jean Charest's brother, Jean Charest the present Liberal Premier of Quebec?

º (1615)

M. Jean-Marc Bard: Indeed.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Might it be possible that on June 2, 1998, in the company of Minister Gagliano, you intervened in a consultation and marketing contract to be given to Robert Charest?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that I consider this question to be in no way related to chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the report of the Auditor General.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Bard, I would tell you that it is not up to you to judge of the appropriateness of the questions. It is the Chairman...

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Is this regarding relevance, Madam Jennings?

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Indeed.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Guimond, it's important that all members remember that relevance is always important in committees and in the House. You have to ensure that your questions pertain to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like to explain something to you, Mr. Chairman. If I have prepared all of these questions, it is more to demonstrate that the Crown corporations that reported to Mr. Gagliano and came under Mr. Bard's coordination were studied in depth by the Auditor General and identified as being problematic management-wise. I was going to ask you to refer to page 17 of chapter 3, where there is mention of the purchase of a screen worth 1.5 million dollars by the Old Port of Montreal Corporation through the Sponsorship Program. This is where I am going with my questions, Mr. Chairman. I wish to demonstrate that the witness did have a say in the issues denounced by the Auditor General.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order. Given that Mr. Guimond has just commented upon my point of order, I would like to comment on the points he has made.

Mr. Guimond maintains that he wishes to demonstrate that there were problems with Crown corporations while Mr. Jean-Marc Bard was Senior Special Assistant in charge of liaison with the Crown corporations, from September 1997 to September 1999, in other words at the time he became Chief of staff for Mr. Gagliano, in September 1999. Mr. Guimond himself has just said that the Auditor General, in her audit of the sponsorships, examined certain files involving Crown corporations and commented upon them. He could therefore limit his questions to the files that the Auditor General herself highlighted.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings. He has raised the issue. He has quoted the Auditor General--

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, might I simply finish?

[English]

The Chair: The issue is relevance, Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I finish?

[English]

The Chair: I don't think I'm going to let you continue because we did the issue of relevance. He pointed out that he's talking about the old Port of Montreal, which is reported--

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. He brought up the issue of the Crown corporations that were not covered by the Auditor General in her report and of the cases reported in the newspapers that were in fact not cases.

[English]

The Chair: After that, Madam Jennings, I told Mr. Guimond to make sure his questions are relevant to the chapters, and now he's talking about page 17, I believe it is, regarding the old Port of Montreal. Mr. Guimond has the floor and we'll ensure that his questions are relevant.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that I was dealing with the Canada Lands Company. I was giving examples of corporations that were under Mr. Bard's jurisdiction. I was discussing the contract of Gespro with the Canada Lands Company, but I will give you another example.

Jon Grant, a former manager with the Canada Lands Company, contends that you asked him for supervisory power over the files coming from Quebec. Is that true?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That is false, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Michel Guimond: It is false. It was amply reported in the newspapers, and I am certain that you have read these articles, that Mr. Grant stated the following: “As Jean-Marc very clearly told me,“ the rest of Canada is yours, Quebec is ours““. I imagine that the Jean-Marc Mr. Grant was alluding to was you. Are you refuting these facts, Mr. Bard?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, I ask you once again if this question is relevant in the context of the issue at hand.

º (1620)

Mr. Michel Guimond: It is not for you to decide, but for the Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, you quoted a quotation by Mr. John Grant, chairman of Canada Lands Company, regarding comments that he had made regarding the sponsorship program and the division of responsibilities within the minister's office. Mr. Jean-Marc Bard—

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute.

Madam Jennings, when you're recognized you will be recognized. Now please refrain from interrupting until you're recognized. I know you wish to speak. I will recognize you in time.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bard, you were the chief of staff in the minister's office from 1999 unto 2002, and you're totally familiar with everything that was going on with the minister as his chief of staff. Prior to that you were involved in the responsibility for the crown corporations. Mr. Grant has made comments regarding issues of division of responsibilities within the office of the minister, and I think they're relevant, so I will allow the question to stand.

Now Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I have a point of order. On that ruling, I would ask that you ask Monsieur Guimond if in fact the comments, the quotes, that he's using from Mr. Grant in fact had to do with sponsorship files or had to do with properties that belonged to Canada Lands that Canada Lands had the responsibility to manage and dispose of in a profitable way.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Guimond, could you read that quote again from Mr. John Grant?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: You would like me to repeat the quote?

Le président: Yes, please.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The following statement made by Mr. Grant was reported publicly: “As Jean-Marc very clearly told me, “The rest of Canada is yours, Quebec is ours.““ Mr. Bard, this is what I am asking you.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Please go on.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Grant was a manager with the Canada Lands Corporation, one of the corporations that reported to you. What did he mean by that comment? It is our duty to interpret the comment in the context of the Auditor General's report on the sponsorship scandal. What is meant by: “Canada is yours, Quebec is ours“? Was it a divvying up of the territory? Were provinces being loaned to one or the other? Please explain this to me.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Guimond, s'il vous plaît.

Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My question has remained unanswered. Mr. Guimond has not specified that the comments made by Jon Grant and which he has quoted related to the sponsorship file, to the Sponsorship Program or to property that was in the hands of the Canada Lands Company. Therefore, even if the quote and the comment from Mr. Grant are correct—and we do not know if this comment is correct—, this is not relevant.

[English]

The Chair: You have made your point, Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: He still hasn't shown—

The Chair: We're not going to get confused here. The question was put to you, Mr. Bard, that the quote had been attributed to Mr. John Grant as saying that Quebec is ours and the rest of Canada is yours. The question is, what did that mean in your eyes?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I would like to quote also from an interview that Mr. Grant gave to the Toronto Star, I believe, where he said that when he went public with his complaints, Mr. Grant said Mr. Jean-Marc Bard, Mr. Gagliano's chief of staff, had asked to be directly involved in Canada Lands deals in Quebec.

What I'm saying I said to Mr. Grant is not “directly involved”, but “directly informed”; not deals in the sense of gimmicks, as Mr. Grant pretended it, but CLC's dealings in Quebec. I never made that kind of proposal or statement to Mr. Grant except in the sense that I'm telling you this now.

Mr. Chair, if you allow me, I would like to table the few letters that Mr. Grant wrote over the years whereby he had a lot of compliments for the minister and some of his staff. Mr. Grant started being reluctant in having discussions and supplying information to the cabinet office toward the end of his mandate, his second three-year mandate, and he wanted to be renewed. The minister had a position that people who served for two years, two terms, I'm sorry.... Two three-year terms could not be renewed—

º (1625)

The Chair: Mr. Bard, thank you very much.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Is this relevant?

The Chair: You may table the documents. I will have them translated, and when translated they will be distributed.

You're making some inferences and allegations and motivations and so on about someone else, and I would prefer that you don't go there. Your position here is to answer questions truthfully and to the best of your knowledge without ascribing motivation to other people's comments.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Bard, if my questions were not appropriate earlier, why have you brought these letters? This means that you have brought a pile of documents that are not relevant. By what coincidence did you bring these documents? None of this was relevant when I brought the matter up in my questions.

[English]

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: The chair asked me to answer your questions, so I did bring some documents to support whatever I've been reading in the paper for the last few years. Whenever this committee had people testify in front of this committee...I did the reading; I read the auditor's report and I read a lot of documentation before I came here as a witness.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will now ask you a question pertaining to certain contracts, given that you were for a long time involved in the purchases of goods and services and in the management side. You were also very familiar to us during the Bourassa years. I will now quote you a comment made by Mr. Dennis Mills that was reported in the Toronto Star of January 11, 2002. I would like to know your opinion. Mr. Mills stated, and I will do my best to read this with my Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean English:

[English]

If I was prime minister, patronage in our government would quadruple overnight.... The problem with this government is there is not enough patronage and unelected bureaucrats are trying to give direction.

[Translation]

What do you think of this comment made by Mr. Mills in the wake of the report on the sponsorship scandal which you most certainly have knowledge of?

[English]

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chair, I'm in no position to comment on Mr. Mills' impression.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I want to know your opinion.

[English]

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I have no opinion to state at this committee, Mr. Chair. I was invited here as a witness.

The Chair: One moment, please.

Monsieur Guimond, I don't think it's helpful to the non-partisanship of this committee to read testimony and comments by other members of this committee and then ask the witness his opinion. That's not why the witness is here. Therefore, your questions to the witness are to elicit information regarding the issue and put it on the record and not to have a debate about Mr. Mills' comments in the media.

And that is it, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I have a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We've had many points of clarification.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I just want to reassure Mr. Guimond that my views on patronage are well known.

The Chair: That's right. That's very well. That's not a point of clarification.

Monsieur Guimond, you have 30 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We will now talk about interference in sponsored events. According to Jean Pelletier, Chief of staff for Prime Minister Chrétien, you did participate in meetings where events to be sponsored were chosen. Is that so?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I read Mr. Pelletier's statement, Mr. Chairman, and from what I remember I never had a meeting with Mr. Pelletier to discuss sponsorship events.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Pelletier therefore lied to us.

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

[English]

Mr. Murphy, eight minutes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bard, thank you for appearing before the committee.

I just want to clarify one issue. I believe you have answered the question, but I want to clarify it in my own mind. You are testifying that you had no dealings at all with Charles Guité on the sponsorship files.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: None whatsoever. When I joined with Minister Gagliano in 1997, I didn't even know Mr. Guité, and it took me a long time to even find out who Mr. Guité was.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: But you never--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never had any meetings with him up until the time I became executive assistant to the minister. After I became executive assistant to the minister, I might have had one meeting as support staff with the minister, but I'm not even sure about that. If I had to say, I would say I had probably one meeting with Mr. Guité in the presence of the minister when I first became chief of staff in 1999.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Since I only have about seven minutes, I am going to zero in on one particular transaction from the Auditor General's report, the transfer of approximately $1.5 million from the sponsorship program to Old Port of Montreal to purchase a screen. I will just quote from the auditor, because it does put the whole thing in perspective:

As part of its operations, Old Port of Montreal wanted to purchase a giant screen for its Science Centre but lacked sufficient funds. We were informed that initially Old Port had approached CCSB to obtain funding for the giant screen. However, CCSB did not provide it with any funds. Following a presentation by Old Port to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, CCSB offered verbally to provide $1.5 million in sponsorship funds in return for federal visibility.

º (1630)

The Chair: Could you indicate the page there, Mr. Murphy?

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Page 15, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Chapter 3.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: So I assume, Mr. Bard, that in the first instance they were turned down. They probably weren't eligible, but they made an overture directly to the minister. At that time, according to these dates, you would have been the executive director. You obviously would have been involved in this overture that came from Old Port of Montreal.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: The only knowledge I have about this electronic poster, or whatever you call it, is that the minister had a meeting at one point, as he did with most of the crown corporations' presidents or chairpersons during his mandate. Mr. Lamarre from Old Port came up with this idea, and the minister told him to send his request to the executive director of CCSB. That is the only knowledge I have of it. Afterwards the executive director of CCSB told me--I'm not sure if it was in the presence of the minister--he was looking into this file in a positive manner. That's all I know about this electronic billboard or whatever.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: But you will agree with me that the executive director of Old Port of Montreal was putting pressure on the minister to have this project put forward.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never saw the executive director of Old Port of Montreal putting pressure on the minister. The person who met with the minister, as I said, like most chairpersons of crown corporations, met with the minister two, three, or four times a year, depending on the scheduling of the meetings. This wasn't the president or the general manager of Old Port, but the chairperson of the board of directors, who happens to be Mr. Bernard Lamarre.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: And the executive director of the sponsorship program at that time was Mr. Tremblay?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, but he wasn't with the minister when that meeting took place. The minister told Mr. Lamarre to send his request in and it would be analysed.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: He was the previous executive director to Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Tremblay, yes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: So you succeeded Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: When Mr. Guité was executive director of CCSB, Mr. Tremblay was executive assistant to the minister. When Mr. Guité retired, Mr. Tremblay became acting executive director of CCSB and I became chief of staff to the minister, around September 1999.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: And Mr. Tremblay worked with Mr. Gagliano for a number of years before going over to the sponsorship program.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Prior to that, yes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: So there would have been a close relationship between Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Tremblay must have known Mr. Gagliano for quite a few years. You should have asked him when he came. You probably have it in his testimony.

The Chair: Mr. Tremblay has not been before the committee.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: You would also agree with me that there would be a very close relationship between Mr. Tremblay and the members of Mr. Gagliano's political staff.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Gagliano's political staff knew Mr. Tremblay, because he used to be their superior.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Obviously, whatever happened here after the meeting with the minister, the decision from the sponsorship program, which was under the directorship of Mr. Tremblay, got reversed. You would agree with that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Until I read it in some of the papers or some of the testimony, I didn't know it had been reversed. I know, when I became executive assistant to the minister, at one time I attended a meeting where Mr. Lamarre was present, and the minister told him to send his request in to the executive assistant of the CCSB. That's it. I didn't know the request had been, if it had, refused previously, as you are saying. I didn't know about that.

º (1635)

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Did you know at the time that it wasn't lawful for the sponsorship program to be funding a capital asset purchase by a crown corporation, namely, Old Port of Montreal?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I don't know about these technical rules applying to the civil service. I read about it in the report. I read the Auditor General's report, but it wasn't my job to know the rules. As I said in my opening declaration, whenever we had files referred to us, we would deal with the civil servants who were identified to us. At the beginning of the minister's mandate senior officials were identified to us who we could send files to and ask information of. We were not technicians of the public administration; we were political staff.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: What would the purchase of a $1.5 million screen have to do with the objectives of the sponsorship program? I don't see the connection.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Neither do I.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: My next issue concerns Lafleur Communications and the purchase of the screen. They received a fee, according to the auditor's report, of $180,000. Was there any discussion in your meetings about the involvement of Lafleur Communications?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Never.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Are you aware of this company?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I am aware of the company, but I wasn't aware until I read it that it was the one assigned to this file.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Did you deal with this company on a regular basis?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never dealt with any of the sponsorship companies on a regular basis at all.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Were you closely associated with any--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I was never closely associated with any of the firms involved in the sponsorship.

The Chair: On a point of clarification, Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Chair, Mr. Bard said he didn't meet with any of these sponsorship companies. I presume he means the advertising agencies?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: My understanding of it, Mr. Chair, is that they are not advertising agencies. The corporations that are mentioned in the auditor's report in French we used to call les agences de commandites. My translation of that is “sponsorship agencies”. I am not sure all of them were advertising corporations. I don't know.

The Chair: Okay, we'll just leave it at that, but basically we're talking about agencies such as Gosselin and Groupaction. As long as we know we're talking about the same agencies, the description we give to them in any language we'll leave to the language of the floor.

Mr. Kenney, is that okay?

Mr. Murphy, my apologies for interrupting. You've got one last question.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Obviously, you're familiar with the report. Obviously, something went seriously wrong with the sponsorship program. Obviously, it was on Mr. Gagliano's watch. You were his executive assistant for a considerable part of this time. Do you accept any responsibility for any aspect of this mess, and if you don't, can you suggest to this committee who might be responsible? We haven't had a whole lot of people parade before the committee and accept responsibility.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It's not for me to accept any responsibility for this. I was political staff. I was receiving sponsorship requests and forwarding them to the general manager or executive director of the CCSB. Most of the events the Auditor General is referring to in chapter 3 I was not involved in. I didn't even know about them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bard. You are not throwing a great deal of light on the issue, so we'll move on to Mr. Martin. Maybe he can find some questions that will shine some light on the issue.

Mr. Martin, eight minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bard, I am just amazed what senior people have come to this committee and how little they seem to know about anything, but I guess I'm only a part-time visitor to this committee at this point.

My question is a direct one. Is it true that Denis Coderre's office called the minister regularly while you were chief of staff?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: If Denis Coderre phoned the minister's office regularly when I was his chief of staff, I never got Mr. Coderre's messages.

Mr. Pat Martin: You wouldn't know?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Coderre never phoned me regularly in the functions I was holding, and I believe, as far as the sponsorship file is concerned, Mr. Coderre never spoke to me about any kind of sponsorship coming from his office.

º (1640)

Mr. Pat Martin: What about other ministers? Did any other ministers make representation to Mr. Gagliano about sponsorship contracts that might be in the pipe or on behalf of certain projects or sponsors?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Gagliano would come back from the House occasionally and hand us a note that was given to him by a member of Parliament asking us to see where the file was standing. We would do the follow-up on the file and inform the person who had talked to the minister, if this is what the minister wanted us to do.

Mr. Pat Martin: Was the minister still meeting with Mr. Tremblay at the time?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: As I said before, it's hard to say how many times the minister was meeting with Mr. Tremblay on a yearly basis. Mr. Tremblay was producing these reports, I believe every second month, but I haven't got copies of these reports.

Mr. Pat Martin: What about Roger Collet?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I know Mr. Collet. When I was at the minister's office, Mr. Collet at one time, I believe, was working at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but I don't know Mr. Collet more than that. I know who he is; I met him socially a few times when we were having meetings with the crown corporations, but it is limited to that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Were you aware of shredding or throwing away of documents associated with the sponsorship program in your office?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: When a minister is replaced, it is part of the tradition to get rid of the files that were in process--

Mr. Pat Martin: At whose direction?

The Chair: Let him answer the question.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have very little time.

The Chair: I know, but he is answering the question.

Mr. Pat Martin: He answered the question.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: As far as I know, when the minister was removed from his post, we had instructions to clean up the files. I believe--

Mr. Pat Martin: Who is “we”?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I believe we did a check with the deputy minister's office. Whatever we had on file as far as sponsorship requests were concerned, doubles existed at CCSB.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you shredded documents associated with the sponsorships?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Most of the documents we had in connection with the sponsorships were photocopies.

Mr. Pat Martin: Were they shredded?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I honestly don't know. They might have been disposed of, but I don't know in what way.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is it true that directions were given to white out any reference to your name on documents with respect to sponsorship?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Not that I know of.

Mr. Pat Martin: Did you ask people to white out your name?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Not that I know of.

The Chair: The question is, did you ask that your name be whited out? Do you remember that being done or not?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It depends on what you are referring to. I would like to see a document of some kind. Whited out from where? Whited out from documents?

Mr. Pat Martin: Did you yourself have your name removed from documents associated with sponsorship applications, contracts, etc.?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Sponsorship applications--

Mr. Pat Martin: Anything. Have you ever asked that your name be whited out from documents?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never asked anybody to white out my name from documents that were officially addressed to me. Never.

Mr. Pat Martin: What about other documents that simply made reference to you, but weren't addressed to you?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I have no recollection of that, and the answer is no.

Mr. Pat Martin: You don't remember if you asked anybody to white out your name from documents?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No.

Mr. Pat Martin: Did the 2000 internal audit have any impact on how things were done around your office? Did it clean things up at all? Did it change the way you conducted business?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: In our office, the sponsorship file wasn't a major file. Day-to-day requests would come in, but we didn't get 20 requests a day. There were two or three requests a day. The busiest period for the sponsorship file was—

Mr. Pat Martin: Two or three a day would come in...to the minister?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: What I'm saying is that the busiest period for the sponsorship requests coming into our office was the spring and early summer, but after that—

Mr. Pat Martin: They came in to the minister, and you were the chief of staff to the minister, or the executive assistant to the minister. What was the term you used?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Executive assistant.

Mr. Pat Martin: So these sponsorship requests would come to the minister, not to CCSB.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: A lot of the sponsorship requests, or some of the sponsorship requests, came in through the courier, through the regular mail.

Mr. Pat Martin: To the minister?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Some people wrote to the minister.

Mr. Pat Martin: This contradicts what the minister told this committee, does it not, that he didn't personally handle...?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That's right. The minister never personally looked at it, because the mail that—

º (1645)

Mr. Pat Martin: But you did.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: The mail that came in for the minister was handled through the mailroom and through the office manager of our political staff, and it would be dispatched. So anything to do with sponsorship requests, coming in from Mr. So-and-So or Mrs. So-and-So, would be given to the assistant responsible for the office administration in our office.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is it true that directions were given to not keep a record of correspondence related to sponsorship, to specifically exclude them from the normal documentation?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, not while I was there. I keep repeating this, but most of the files in our office concerning sponsorship were strictly photocopies of everything that had been sent to CCSB.

Mr. Pat Martin: So when the minister got applications for sponsorship.... From other staff, we've heard of meetings where the minister would go away for a meeting with Mr. Guité, or I presume he would later go away for a meeting with Mr. Tremblay, and come back and give the findings on which applications would get money and which would not get money.

Is that your understanding of how things worked?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, it is not.

Mr. Pat Martin: The minister would give thumbs up or thumbs down at Mamma Teresa's.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never saw the minister go away with Guité, because I wasn't executive assistant at the time.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I understand that, but what about Mr. Tremblay?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never saw the minister go away with Tremblay and come back with whatever you have mentioned.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do you believe Mr. Tremblay was taking direction from the minister as to which sponsorship contracts would be approved?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I don't believe so. I met a lot with Mr. Tremblay, because Mr. Tremblay stopped by my office every time he came to see the deputy minister, and occasionally he would talk about sponsorship with me, but only as a general matter and not in order to give him any kind of directional—

Mr. Pat Martin: Do you ever remember hearing people talk about whether they were getting value for the sponsorship program? Was that ever talked about? Did you ever have meetings where people said, “Are we or are we not getting good value for the sponsorship program?”

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: This might have come up when the minister had the parliamentary report on the internal audit.

Mr. Pat Martin: What would be your opinion?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. We'll just leave it there.

Mr. Kenney, please, for eight minutes.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.

Monsieur Bard, would you frequently hold meetings with Mr. Tremblay outside of the office—or occasionally?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Not that I can remember, and if I had to say yes or no, I would say no.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Did you attend many business lunches with Mr. Gagliano here in Ottawa at, for instance, Mamma Teresa's restaurant?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: At what?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mamma Teresa's. You've been there, presumably?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, definitely, like most people in this room probably have. Except that, normally, the way the minister and I worked was that we would have dinner together on Monday evening, and occasionally, yes, we would go to Mamma Teresa's—but only the minister and myself.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So Mr. Tremblay wouldn't join you?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I don't believe I ever had dinner with Mr. Tremblay and the minister.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I see.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I had lunches with Mr. Tremblay, occasionally, and I would say that it was probably, at the very most, twice a year.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Sir, Mr. Martin asked you a question about whether you ever gave instruction for incoming mail related to the sponsorship program not to be recorded, and I believe you said no such rule was given not to record incoming correspondence. Is that your answer?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That's my answer, as far as I can remember.

Mr. Jason Kenney: As far as you can remember.

If you were to learn that we had evidence that this was not true, that in fact you had given instructions for such incoming correspondence not to be recorded, what would you say?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I would say I would have to see the evidence first.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You would have to see it first. Then that might help you to recall?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It might come back to me. My employment with the minister started in 1997. That's almost seven years ago. So if a lot of events happened on a daily basis--

Mr. Jason Kenney: For instance, you don't recall, as you testified to Mr. Toews, with what frequency Mr. Tremblay may have met with your boss, Mr. Gagliano. You said there were reports every two or three months, but you have no possible recollection of how frequent those meetings were. Is that your evidence?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That's not my evidence, I guess, what you're saying. What I am saying is that Mr. Tremblay would produce a report probably every second month, if my memory serves me well.

º (1650)

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Bard, my question had nothing to do--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Then Mr. Tremblay would present his report.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Sir, my question had nothing to do with how frequently he would produce a report, but rather how frequently he would meet with Minister Gagliano. Would you please answer that question directly?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: My answer to that is, as often as he produced a report.

Mr. Jason Kenney: No more frequently than that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I wasn't present if he met more frequently than that.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Let's be clear. You would have us believe that Mr. Tremblay, the former executive assistant to Minister Gagliano, now executive director of the sponsorship program in charge of what Mr. Gagliano called a critically important file, only met with him no more than four times a year?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'm not saying four times a year. I never said four times a year.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You said every two to three months. That's six times a year.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, my answer to this is that we met with Mr. Tremblay every time a report came out. If you have copies of the reports that were produced by Mr. Tremblay, reports on sponsorship progress, then you'll have an approximate answer as to how many times we met with Mr. Tremblay.

The Chair: This is a very long way to get around Mr. Kenney's question. Your response was that the only time you met with Mr. Tremblay was when he produced a report. He only produced a report approximately once every couple of months or so. In quite simple mathematics, that is approximately six times a year. Therefore, since Mr. Tremblay only met with the minister when he produced a report, it would seem that six times a year would be your evidence. Is that--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Providing that the reports were produced every second month, yes.

The Chair: But you did say that.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I did say that, but in one of my answers I said every second or third month. My guess is it's every second month that the--

The Chair: This is taking a very long time to get out approximately, give or take, six times a year.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes.

The Chair: Is that your testimony, give or take, around that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That's a guesstimate, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Kenney, please.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: But, Mr. Chair, I have also stated that whenever Mr. Tremblay came to see the deputy minister, most of the time he would stop by my office and have a chat with me. I don't know if that's to be considered a meeting, but the minister was never present when this happened.

The Chair: It is confusing.

Mr. Kenney, please.

Mr. Jason Kenney: When you had these frequent meetings with Mr. Tremblay, these chats, you said they didn't often deal with the sponsorship program. Would you ever express the minister's wishes with respect to the administration of the sponsorship program during these chats with Mr. Tremblay?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, I didn't have to, because when I succeeded Mr. Tremblay in his chair as executive assistant to the minister, the sponsorship program mechanisms were already in place. The political input that was sent to the executive director's office was already in place. The person who taught the other person who took the place of office manager was Isabelle Roy, and she said so in her testimony also. So that system was in place.

When I got to be executive assistant, most of the files that the Auditor General is referring to were already on the way and were already under production. An example was the Maurice Richard file.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Gagliano testified that as early as 2000 he heard street rumours about what he characterized as potential fraud and maladministration of the sponsorship program. Did you hear such rumours? Did you report them?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You never did?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never did hear any rumours.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You were the executive assistant to the minister. He is hearing about rumours of fraud in a program that he is overseeing, and you, as his executive assistant, hadn't heard that, didn't discuss it, didn't report to him?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, I hadn't.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You weren't really doing your job, then, to cover him politically, were you, in that regard?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I was doing my job, because my job wasn't the sponsorship file.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I see.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I had a person assigned to this, and for us, the sponsorship file was like a mailroom. As I said in my opening statement, we would verify the content of the requests that came in through the mail.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Could you explain something to me, Mr. Bard? As you know, we have had evidence that Mr. Guité--whom you may have met once but you don't recall--met as often as two to three times a week with Minister Gagliano. We've heard that testimony from at least three witnesses.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I've heard that and I've read it in the papers.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Guité was replaced in 1999 by Pierre Tremblay, who was even closer to Gagliano. He was his former right-hand man. And you are wanting us to believe that Mr. Gagliano went from meeting with the executive director of CCSB two to three times a week to meeting maybe six times a year, that all of a sudden Tremblay's relationship had nothing of the quality of Mr. Guité's relationship with Gagliano? Is that what you would have us believe?

º (1655)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I told you the way things were going on during the period that I was chief of staff for the minister, and when I read the auditor's report and you refer to the dates, I believe that most of the files we were handling that are quoted as sponsorship files were minor items. There were no major items in these files.

Mr. Jason Kenney: They were major enough, sir, for the chief of staff to the Prime Minister to take an active interest in them.

Did Mr. Tremblay, to the best of your knowledge, as executive director of CCSB meet with Jean Pelletier as chief of staff to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I have never seen Mr. Tremblay meet with Mr. Pelletier.

Mr. Jason Kenney: That wasn't my question. My question was, do you have any knowledge of such meetings?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Did you ever give instruction that other members of the minister's staff were not to see correspondence related to the sponsorship issue?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I did.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You did give such instructions?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes, I did.

Mr. Jason Kenney: So you were to be the only person in the office to review incoming correspondence with respect to the sponsorship?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That is not correct, Mr. Chair.

When Mr. Tremblay was appointed executive director, he handed me a pile of his new business cards and told me to have whoever talked to me about sponsorship write to him.

So the instruction to the staff was that for any sponsorship requests that people talked to them about, they should refer those people to Mr. Tremblay, who was the executive director of CCSB, or to the person responsible in our office, and this was only to keep everybody focused on the fact that there was one person assigned to this in our office.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I just want to briefly go back to your time as special assistant responsible for Quebec, prior to 1999. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, I was senior policy adviser to the minister.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Okay, senior policy adviser.

Now, we've heard testimony that this was a critical and important objective for the Prime Minister and Minister Gagliano, that they all signed these Treasury Board submissions, that the deputy minister knew this was a top priority file and had to get things done, even if it meant bending some of the rules--according to Mr. Guité. We've heard all of that evidence.

You were the special assistant for three years, working on political advice to Minister Gagliano--

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chair, it wasn't for three years.

Mr. Jason Kenney: My question is simply this: would you have us believe you knew nothing about, heard nothing about, the sponsorship program, sponsorship files, relationships with ad firms, that you were completely in the dark as Minister Gagliano's political assistant prior to your appointment as executive assistant? Is that your testimony?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: In a way, Mr. Chair, when I got to sit in that chair as executive assistant, all of the files that the Auditor General is referring to had been handled under Mr. Guité. So as the chief of staff, I had no responsibility for these files.

Mr. Jason Kenney: The question was about the period prior to being chief of staff.

The Chair: Mr. Bard, this is a question I've wanted to ask a number of the witnesses. I don't think it has ever really been asked.

Why was the minister's office so intimately involved in the sponsorship program, to the point that it seems a large amount of the mail, the applications, everything was coming to the minister's office, when in every other program of the Government of Canada it goes to the bureaucrats' offices? It doesn't get to the minister's address.

If these people all across the country, primarily in the province of Quebec, were applying for a grant, did it have the minister's address as the place to apply for it? Why were these applications all coming into your office?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: First of all, Mr. Chair, I've told you in a few instances they didn't all come to the minister's office.

The Chair: I didn't say that. I just asked about why so many came.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: And we didn't get that great a volume. The volume we got, the most important period for sponsorship, was for the summer festivals, and it started flowing in--

The Chair: I know all that, Mr. Bard. That is not my question at all--period.

I asked why did all these applications seem to come to the minister's office instead of going to bureaucrats' offices where they normally go for every other program? Why did you have staff in the minister's office dedicated to the sponsorship program when nobody else had?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: We didn't have staff dedicated to it.

The Chair: You did. You said so earlier.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: We didn't have staff totally dedicated to the sponsorship file. For the staff person who was looking after the sponsorship file, it must have represented maybe a quarter of her billing time.

The Chair: Well, that's fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: When I was chief of staff, this is what was happening.

The Chair: Madam Jennings, you have eight minutes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

Mr. Bard, I see in your resume that you had worked both in the private sector and the provincial public sector before becoming, in 1997, Special Assistant to Mr. Gagliano, who was Minister of Public Works.

I see that you have held several rather important positions. From April 1994 to January 1995, you were Chief Executive Officer of the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. From January 1992 to April 1994, you were CEO for the Société de l'assurance-automobile du Québec. And the list goes on.

» (1700)

[English]

The Chair: Order. We can't have discussions across the floor, please.

Madam Jennings, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. I presume that if committee members are of the view that my questions are not relevant, they will raise points of order, but they have not done so. You had us waste a lot of time in the beginning with your points of order.

Mr. Bard, given the important positions that you have held at the provincial level in Quebec, in public corporations of the provincial government, you are obviously used to working with policies, rules, procedures, etc.

Here is my question. It has been established that the minister, and by inference, his political staff, were not responsible for the day to day administration of the department. The ministers as well as the experts reporting to them came and told us this. Given that you had expertise and in-depth knowledge of the workings of public corporations and of government policies and processes, for example those of Treasury Board, while you were Chief of staff for Mr. Gagliano, in other words from September 1999 to January 2002, did you ever have reason to believe that the Director General, Mr. Guité, was circumventing Treasury Board policies, violating rules and procedures governing supply, the granting of contracts and the application of the Financial Administration Act as provided for by Treasury Board? Did you at any time have reason to believe that something was fishy within the Communications Coordination Services Branch?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, the first indication I got of such a situation came from the internal audit report, that mentioned weaknesses that had been discovered during the internal audit. I believe that previous witnesses have spoken about this at length.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: When he appeared before us, Mr. Gagliano stated that he had heard things that bothered him with regard to the management and administration of the Communications Coordination Services Branch. Whether it was him or Mr. Ran Quail, the Deputy Minister at the time, because he says that it was his decision, in any event, there were discussions with regard to the fact that something a little fishy was going on within the branch.

Were you present at that or those meetings with Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Quail where it was discussed that something was perhaps not working properly with the sponsorship program and that an internal audit should be ordered?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: From memory, the first meeting I attended where the subject was mentioned is the one where there was a discussion about the preliminary internal audit report with the Minister, in his office, in the presence of Mr. Quail. The Minister mentioned that Mr. Steinberg, the Internal Auditor, was present. If I recall correctly, it is Mr. Jim Stobbe who was there, because Mr. Steinberg was at that time being treated for an illness he was suffering from. I heard part of Mr. Steinberg's testimony and I believe he was right. If my memory serves me right, the first time that I heard talk of this was when the preliminary report was tabled, and it was Mr. Stobbe who was present, and not Mr. Steinberg.

» (1705)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: At that time, you were not aware that the Minister had received approval from Mr. Quail to launch an internal audit of the branch.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: What I have just recounted to you took place after the decision to proceed with an internal audit was taken. I have just told you that I learned of the content when the preliminary internal audit report was tabled.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I did not ask you when you learned of the content of the internal audit preliminary report. I was asking you if your had had knowledge of the fact that it had been decided to launch an internal audit.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I could probably say yes, because I was aware of the fact that an internal audit was under way. If I had to say yes or no, I would say yes, I was aware of the fact that an internal audit was under way. Was I present when the decision was made? I do not remember.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Do you remember the reasons why it was decided to launch an internal audit?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I did not remember the reasons why it was decided to launch an internal audit, but based upon Mr. Quail's testimony, I would tend to think along the same lines as him. As I rummage about in my memory, I do remember that following what happened at HRDC, Mr. Quail and/or the Minister decided to proceed with an internal audit. That is my perception of things, but I cannot give you a one hundred percent guarantee that that is what happened.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

Do I still have some time left, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, you still have half a minute.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: When you worked for the provincial government, which party was in power?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It was the Liberal Party of Quebec. Someone spoke earlier of the Liberal Party. It was the Liberal Party of Quebec.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Therefore, it is for the Liberal Party of Quebec that you worked as an organizer or a volunteer.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: When I worked in the Quebec government, after the 70s, I worked for the government of Quebec and not for the Liberal Party of Quebec. I worked as Deputy Minister and as President of Public Corporations.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, now we're going to stop right there, Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Why did you leave the Régie de l'assurance-maladie?

[English]

The Chair: We're well over time now, Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Mr. Desrochers, you have eight minutes.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In your work as consultant, did you have public, administrative duties or partisan duties?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: When?

Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you were a consultant to Mr. Gagliano, from 1997 to 1999.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I was not a consultant to Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Then what were you?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I was senior advisor.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Forgive me. Did you have administrative managerial duties or partisan duties?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Clearly, if you work in a minister's office, some of your duties are partisan. Within the minister's office, people have administrative duties, in the sense that they are given responsibilities and must report on the results to the minister on occasion. It is difficult for me to give you a specific answer but, in essence, when you work in the minister's office as a political employee, yes, there is a partisan aspect.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You were deputy minister for Supply and Services in Quebec City from 1986 to 1989. You thus gained solid experience with contracts. You were also Deputy Minister with Marc-Yvan Côté from 1989 to 1991. We are also told that you coordinated the funding for Mr. Bourassa's leadership campaign. You are therefore a good fundraiser.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a correction. I was Deputy Minister of Transport for a three-month stint during Marc-Yvan Côté's time. If I am not mistaken, there were elections in 1989. Mr. Bourassa had appointed me Deputy Minister at Transport approximately three months before the general election. After the general election, Mr. Marc-Yvan Côté became Minister of Health.

» (1710)

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Was Mr. Gagliano the political minister for Quebec when you worked with him?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Yes.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did he, at any point, ask you to do any fundraising, given your vast experience?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Gagliano never asked me to do fundraising. The Director General of the Liberal Party of Canada asked me to help set up a fundraising campaign for the Liberal Party of Canada in Eastern Quebec.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Are you trying to tell me that despite your knack for fundraising--you must know that a good fundraiser is important for a party, especially the Liberal Party--, Mr. Gagliano never asked you to do anything in this regard? We have questions, for example as to the amount of money that the advertising agencies received. It is thought that a portion of that money flowed back into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada. Were you not involved in that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I was never directly involved in the collection of monies, especially not with regard to the sponsorship and advertising agencies.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Were you not aware that these were all very liberal agencies?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Of course, we heard talk of the fact that these were agencies that had relationships with the Liberal Party. We heard talk of that.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: They got good commissions. Were you never tempted to...?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I only learned about these commissions when the newspapers started talking about all of this. At the time, I was Senior Advisor to the Minister and I was not involved in the sponsorship files.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to talk to you about the Old Port of Montreal Corporation file, for which you were responsible. How can you justify that, under a $1,725,000 contract for the purchase of a giant screen and programming for the Old Port, commissions amounting to $225,000 were paid out to Lafleur and to Media/IDA Vision, such that, in the end, the Old Port of Montreal Corporation got 1.5 million dollars? Is that normal in your view?

Mr. Bard, it seems to me that Public Works could have purchased the screen without paying a commission to the advertising agencies mentioned. This concerns you, I believe.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, I was not in charge of the Old Port of Montreal Corporation; this was a file that the Minister had asked me to follow. There is a distinction between being in charge of a file and following it.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: But when you were following the file...

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: As I said in a previous response, I was present at a meeting where Mr. Lamarre, president of the Board of Directors, made his request. The minister referred the matter to Mr. Tremblay, who was Executive Director of CCSB.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Are you telling me that you were not aware?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I did not know and I never knew that this file had been entrusted to an agency called Lafleur Communication.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You were not aware that Lafleur would take a commission on these $1,725,000 and that the company would only get 1.5 million dollars? Do you swear that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I swear. I never knew those people were pocketing such a high commission for the transfer of funds. Never.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you were in Mr. Gagliano's office as Special Advisor or Chief of staff, you knew nothing of this. You did not know that commissions would be paid out. It was a revelation for you when the Auditor General's report came out. Is this what you are telling me?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It is not a matter of my knowing nothing. When I arrived as chief of staff, most of these files had already been taken care of, funded and...

Mr. Odina Desrochers: We know how they were taken care of.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: ...the agencies had been chosen.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: They had also been paid.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I had no involvement whatsoever with that process, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes, but what was going on in that office? Is that serious, for Mr. Gagliano's office, for the Deputy Minister's office, for the Director General's office and for the Chief of staff to not know what was going on? No one knew what was going on. I can tell you that that is dangerous for democracy! When issues as important as those come to light, when a committee such as ours gets together and is told “I did not know, I did not know“ and has to try and figure out if there were meetings, etc., do you consider that that is a serious way of doing things, Mr. Bard?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, the management of the department did not come under the Prime Minister's office; it came under the Deputy Minister's office. I therefore have nothing to say in that regard. We are not the ones who manage the department; it was the Deputy Minister and his officials.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You never talked to the Deputy Minister?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Of course we talked to the Deputy Minister. We had meetings with the Deputy Minister. This was part of the briefings we had on a multitude of issues. The Department of Public Works and Government Services is a huge department that deals with a multitude of files day-in day-out, week-in week-out.

The Minister, the staff and myself were regularly briefed by senior officials as to content and approaches in what was going on in the department, policy changes, etc., but we are not the ones who manage the department, Mr. Chairman.

» (1715)

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Were you briefed by Mr. Tremblay when he was in charge of the sponsorship file? Were you briefed by Mr. Pierre Tremblay?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: As I said in answer to the Chairman's question earlier, we would see Mr. Tremblay and he would inform us about the sponsorships. When I took on my duties as Chief of staff in the Minister's office, the document transfer system already existed.

As far as I am concerned, during the two years and three or four months during which I was Chief of staff, those files were for me secondary files, as I have told you several times already.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Political files...

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: The large files had already been launched...

Mr. Odina Desrochers: ... had been taken care of by Privy Council Office.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: ... and a good many of them I was not even aware of.

[English]

The Chair: Let's hear from one person at a time.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I was not even aware of a good many of them. I learned of the nature of these files in the newspapers and in the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Allow me to tell you that in that minister's office, people did not talk. If that was the case, Mr. Bard, it is a complete farce.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chairman, that minister's office was one that reported to the minister of a department that was huge. We could not interfere in the management of things nor manage the department.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Mr. Desrochers.

Again, I'm just astounded, Mr. Bard, that, as you've just said, you were continually being briefed on all matters by all people from the department and so on, and yet on the most important file on the Prime Minister's desk, on the minister's desk, and so on, you, as the chief of staff and a political adviser to the minister, didn't know anything about it.

But it has been brought to my attention, Mr. Bard, that blank spaces sometimes raise a lot more questions than what is actually written down, and on your curriculum vitae, which has been supplied to the committee, there is a blank from 1982 to 1985. It just says contrôleur-trésorier, and then there's a blank space where something has obviously been whited out. What was removed from your curriculum vitae, Mr. Bard?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I don't really know, but I'll look into it. This comes as a surprise to me.

The Chair: It was a surprise to me as well.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'm not sure. It was from 1982 to when?

The Chair: Well, you can see it right there on page 2.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: From 1982 to 1985 I was controller and treasurer of Lavalin International, if you look. From 1979 to 1985--

The Chair: I know, but right below that, as you can see, Mr. Bard, there's a big blank where something has been removed.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: The big blank, sir, that has been removed was the definition of the tasks I was doing as controller and treasurer. These tasks, at one point, Mr. Chair, were amended because I was assigned offshore for many years during that period, and I kept my title anyway. I was what they called at the time an affiliate, which was like a kind of junior partner with Lavalin. I worked offshore for many years. Then I came back and I sat in that chair again.

The Chair: As I mentioned to you, blank spaces sometimes raise more questions than the document.

Anyway, we are now moving to Mr. Tonks, who has eight minutes.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Mr. Chair, I have one last remark. I don't accept the fact of what you're saying, that these blanks raise a lot of questions.

The Chair: They always do.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It shows--and you can find out from SNC-Lavalin--that I was employed by Lavalin. The text was removed because of the tasks that were there at the time...and if you look on my resumé, it was prepared in 1997. The tasks that were described there, at the time I exercised those functions, from 1982 to 1985, were amended because I was assigned to Nigeria, also to Cameroon, and also to Algeria--and I was still performing my tasks from those countries abroad.

The Chair: That's all very well, Mr. Bard. I just made an observation that when one sees a blank space on a piece of paper it raises more questions than the rest usually answers.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'll send you a corrected one if you want, Mr. Chair. We'll take the blanks off the resumé.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, you have eight minutes, please.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is coincidental that you raise the issue of Mr. Bard's resumé.

I was going to say, Mr. Bard, that I was very impressed with your resumé.

» (1720)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see that a person who has done post-graduate work in commerce, business, and finance would have an intense interest in the oversight or the accounting procedures that in a corporation would protect the corporation in terms of its processes.

I want to ask you a question with respect to the audit that was done. You have partially answered the question, but it was in a presentation that Mr. Steinberg made. He talked about a meeting where he was bringing Mr. Gagliano up-to-date with respect to the findings of the audit. He said, and I will quote from Mr. Steinberg's testimony:

Following on the heels of the media interest around the HRDC audit and an anticipation of the internal audit being posted on the Internet, I was involved in a series of briefings to senior officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, and the Prime Minister's Office, on the audit findings.

And this is the important part. At least, this is the point I want to raise with you:

I also briefed Mr. Gagliano that week. During that meeting I provided him with a copy of the final internal audit report approved by the audit review committee, as well as the briefing deck that I used to brief the...committee—

--and I think he is referring to the audit, committee members--

and which...I'm tabling...today.

I guess my question to you, Mr. Bard, is—I didn't hear the answer to Ms. Jennings' question—whether you did attend or whether you can recall attending, and I do realize it's several years ago, that meeting with Mr. Steinberg when he did raise the issues out of the audit with Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: It's possible because I had a few meetings in the presence of Mr. Steinberg, meetings that were done for the minister. But as I said before, this was a period in his life when Mr. Steinberg was getting treatment from the hospital, and a lot of the time, depending on the period, he wasn't necessarily present. When Mr. Steinberg wasn't present, he was replaced by Mr. Stobbe, who was assistant deputy minister responsible for finance, I believe, and part of the administration of the department.

So, yes, I attended meetings where Mr. Steinberg was present. Do I recall all of the content? No, I don't. I read the internal auditor's report. I reread it recently, and my personal evaluation is that when the minister suspended the sponsorship program, he took the right decision.

When the minister asked either Mr. Stobbe or Mr. Steinberg and the deputy minister whether there was any cause to call in a police investigation—and I was also present—they answered no, there were administrative things that had to be corrected, and they were serious, but they answered that it wasn't necessary at that stage to call in the RCMP to start a police investigation on the matter.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.

You have a very heavy commercial and accounting background certainly in terms of your CV. Mr. Gagliano is a certified general accountant. So your perspective of that meeting was that you were looking at the results that were required of the audit and you felt that the direction had been given quite clearly.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Correct, and the plan that was submitted to arrive at the correction of the situation. I maintain that the minister took the right decision, along with the deputy minister. The minister never took the decision by himself.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Because it is the oversight that has been questioned in terms of that period of time when.... There were two periods of time. One was in 1996 when there was an audit, and then this particular auditing window, if you will.

Mr. Bard, you mentioned that the applications, albeit small applications, would come in from time to time and that you looked at photocopies. This is interesting because we were told, I believe, by Mr.—there have been so many witnesses. Someone had indicated that.... Was it Mr. Boulay who gave us this? Yes, Mr. Boulay indicated that when the agencies received applications for sponsorship—they were given the role of expediting the application—they also had duplicates.

Now you are saying that when something came to Mr. Gagliano's office, even a very minimal application, you looked at a photocopy.

» (1725)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, this is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we sent the original to CCSB and we would keep a photocopy. It was for us like a follow-up file. It wasn't for us an official file because the official document was sent to CCSB.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. That's very important in the sense that it has been indicated by I think Ms. Roy and Ms. Tremblay that there was very little documentation and—

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I had no way to go and look in their files. But as far as we were concerned at the minister's office, we kept the photocopy and we sent the original to CCSB of everything we had received.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Can you recall the comprehensiveness—one minute? Okay, I'm going to leave that question.

There was one other question I want to ask. In all of the time, Mr. Bard, that you were in the minister's office in whatever capacity, as chief of staff or whatever—you have given us a description of how the intake was made in the office and the facilitation through to the CCSB—can you remember the minister's office, or anyone, overturning a decision of the CCSB with respect to a sponsorship application?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: No, sir, never.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay. That's all the questions I have Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Tonks, and we've completed two rounds. There are a couple of minutes left. I'll use that up myself.

Mr. Bard, Mr. Kenny mentioned that we have information that there were two streams of correspondence coming into the minister's office. There was the normal correspondence and correspondence regarding the sponsorship program. The normal correspondence was stamped received and recorded and so on and so forth. Yet there were instructions that the sponsorship correspondence was not to be stamped received and recorded, but just to be passed on to you.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: That is not correct.

The Chair: Then what is the situation, Mr. Bard?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: What was the situation is what I told you before.

Any request that came into the minister's office was sent to the—

The Chair: My question was, was it stamped and recorded and handled as a document—

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I never did. Was it stamped or not? I don't remember. I never did give instruction not to stamp it or not to record it. And I don't see how intelligent this would be because we kept a copy of the file. So why would we give instruction not to stamp it and not to record it?

The Chair: Quite obviously if it was never recorded as having been received, plausible deniability comes right into play at a later date, doesn't it? But if it is recorded then perhaps some documentation would be passed on to the department, and would therefore be eligible to be obtained through access to information. But if these documents had a different process entirely that was kept under wraps, shall we say, then it may never come to the light of day. Maybe that's why the Auditor General is having the problem of finding out about these documents today.

My question to you is, was there a different way of handling the correspondence for the sponsorship program that specifically included not recording the mail in a log so that you knew what had been received?

» (1730)

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I would be very surprised because, as I mentioned to you before, the person who occupied the chair as the assistant responsible for office management, Ms. Bouvier, was informed by Isabelle Roy as to how to treat the files. Ms. Bouvier was a very well-trained Public Works employee who, prior to her arrival, was in charge of correspondence on the minister's floor for all of the minister's office and, I believe--I'm not sure--the deputy minister. Ms. Bouvier normally, if documents had to be stamped, would have said, we have to stamp the documents.

I never got involved in the mechanics of how these files were to be treated, but we kept a photocopy and sent the original to CCSB. As far as I can recall, very honestly, I never gave instructions not to stamp them. What we did was, we continued what Mr. Tremblay had been doing when I arrived.

The Chair: Let's get this clear: you said you did, you didn't, or, being evasive, you don't recall.

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I'm not being evasive. I'm telling you, from my recollection, we had no reason to say, don't stamp the correspondence.

The Chair: I'm going to move on to something else.

Mr. Bard, I'm quite concerned. We have all kinds of information coming to this committee, and therefore my point was to ask, did you give specific instructions to someone to handle mail in a certain way other than the normal way? Your testimony is that no, you did not. However, you have a minor qualification in there, saying, I reserve the right to change my mind. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: I don't have a minor qualification. I'm telling you I can't understand why we would have given such instructions, and Ms. Bouvier was a well-trained civil servant. She wasn't a political attaché; she was a civil servant, and that was her job. I don't see why I would have given instructions to do that.

The Chair: This is my last question. Again, you were the chief of staff to the minister and you were in a political position before that. Did Mr. Coderre's office or Mr. Coderre himself communicate with your office regularly regarding the sponsorship program?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: Did he communicate with me? Mr. Coderre, as I answered--

The Chair: No, with Mr. Gagliano's office. You were the chief of staff; you were the gatekeeper for the minister. My question is, was Mr. Coderre or his office in communication with Mr. Gagliano or his office on a regular basis regarding the sponsorship program?

Mr. Jean-Marc Bard: To use your word, Mr. Chair, and as I said to Mr. Guimond previously, Mr. Coderre never spoke to me in my role as a gatekeeper about sponsorship. Mr. Coderre didn't necessarily appreciate my personality.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We will leave it there.

The clerk has given me a note here. Mr. Bard, you are under oath, and just as a final statement, is there anything we should allow you...? Do you wish to withdraw...?

Sorry, I had that totally confused.

I'm going to close the meeting. Do you have something, Mr. Toews?

Mr. Vic Toews: I just thought that in light of the testimony we heard today, I'd like to make a couple of motions in respect of witnesses:

That in relation to Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General...this Committee requests that Jean-Marc Bard appear further on Thursday, May 13, 2004 or such earlier time as the Committee may otherwise determine.

And second, I give notice:

That in relation to Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General...this Committee requests that Joanne Bouvier appear before the Committee to provide evidence on Thursday, May 13, 2004 or such earlier time as the Committee may otherwise determine.

The Chair: That is notice of motion; that will be discussed Tuesday morning.

Mr. O'Neal, you have been talking to the Auditor General's office about something Mr. Franks was saying. Do you want to take it from here, please?

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

During the lunch hour I received a phone call from the Auditor General's office concerning a document Professor Franks mentioned during this morning's testimony having to do with a study the Auditor General's office had done on government programs. That is a study that is not going to be tabled in the House, so the committee may wish to request that document from the Auditor General's office.

The Chair: Is it agreed that we request the document?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Bard, you may withdraw at this point in time. We thank you for coming forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I perhaps have a question for Mr. Bard.

[English]

The Chair: No, that's over.

» (1735)

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to request unanimous consent that we dispense with the notice of motion and proceed to the motion.

The Chair: You mean the ones you just introduced?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Toews is asking but there is no unanimous consent.

The meeting is adjourned.