PACC Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
| Á | 1110 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet (As Individual) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| Á | 1115 |
| Á | 1120 |
| Á | 1125 |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC) |
| Á | 1135 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| Á | 1145 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
| Â | 1200 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1205 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Â | 1210 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| Â | 1215 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Le président |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| Â | 1220 |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Â | 1225 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Â | 1230 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Â | 1235 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Â | 1240 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Â | 1245 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
| Â | 1250 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
| Â | 1255 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
| ¸ | 1410 |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| ¸ | 1415 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¸ | 1420 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¸ | 1425 |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
| ¸ | 1430 |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| ¸ | 1435 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¸ | 1440 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
| ¸ | 1445 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¸ | 1450 |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¸ | 1455 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1500 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
| ¹ | 1505 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1510 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Hon. Joe Jordan |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1515 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1520 |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1525 |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1530 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1535 |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1600 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1605 |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. André Ouellet |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1110)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good morning, everybody.
The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), chapter 3, the sponsorship program, chapter 4, advertising activities, and chapter 5, “management of public opinion research, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on February 10, 2004.
Our witness today is, as an individual, Mr. André Ouellet.
Before we get into the substance of the meeting, I'll just go through a few little housekeeping chores.
On Wednesday, April 7, Elizabeth Kingston, the clerk of the committee, wrote to Mr. Marshall, the Deputy Minister and Deputy Receiver General for Canada, Public Works, stating that we adopted a motion requesting the government to provide the first and second administrative review reports of the sponsorship files conducted by Kroll Lindquist Avey for Public Works and Government Services in their entirety. That letter is tabled.
Also on April 7, I wrote to Mr. Richard Paré, the parliamentary librarian, regarding a motion we had adopted that the committee instruct the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament to provide all support necessary to assist the clerks and researchers in meeting their increased workload in this particular investigation. I went on to compliment the hard work that has been done by the clerks, counsel, and other support staff.
A letter was written by Mr. Walsh to Mr. Judd regarding the Treasury Board policy on indemnification of legal assistance for crown servants. We had discussed that earlier. That letter is tabled and public.
There's also a letter to Mr. William Corbett, which is exactly the same letter as I wrote to Mr. Paré at the library, again saying we appreciate the work that has been provided to us, and if we need more, we will expect it to be provided.
There's a letter, also dated April 7, to Mr. Alex Himmelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet, requesting that the order in council be amended to refer to December 1993 instead of July 1996, as we had discussed previously in the committee.
So these are the documents that are tabled and made public.
Mr. Ouellet, you have your legal counsel with you, Mr. Heenan. Mr. Heenan, you may advise your client, but you're not allowed to speak to the committee. The committee will address their questions to Mr. Ouellet; they will not address their questions to you. Mr. Ouellet, if you wish to consult with your counsel, you may do so at any time.
According to Marleau and Montpetit, “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 is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 862, and I read it before all witnesses. You're not being singled out.
I also ask all the witnesses, as you are appearing before us as an individual, did you discuss this or have any meetings with any employees of the Government of Canada or any members of this committee in preparation of your report before coming to this meeting? Of course, I would have to include Canada Post in that. Did you discuss your report with anybody before coming?
Hon. André Ouellet (As Individual): No.
The Chair: You did not.
Has legal advice been provided or paid for by the authorization of any official in the Treasury Board Secretariat, Department of Public Works and Government Services, or any other government department or agency? Of course, that would include Canada Post. Has legal advice been provided to you or paid for by their authorization?
Hon. André Ouellet: I have to indicate to you that I'm here to respond to remarks that were made in the Auditor General's report dealing with Canada Post. It's not only me as an individual, but Canada Post as a corporation that is under review. Of course, Canada Post has, I believe properly, assisted me in preparing myself to appear here in response to your questions.
The Chair: Can you give us a brief outline of what kind of support they have given you, Mr. Ouellet? Have they coached you, or given you any guidance? What exactly did they provide to you before you came here this morning?
Hon. André Ouellet: They allowed me to have Mr. Heenan as a counsellor. Of course, I also prepared myself by reading the testimony of others and by looking at my recollections of the two cases raised by the Auditor General. I've been preparing myself, with Mr. Heenan, for this purpose.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
You have an opening statement to read, Mr. Ouellet, so we will turn it over to you.
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also wish to thank the committee members for permitting me to appear this morning to offer my perspective on those aspects of the Auditor General's November 2003 report that involves Canada Post.
As committee members may know, I stepped down as a Member of Parliament and a Minister of the Government of Canada in January 1996. I served as Chair of Canada Posts Corporation from January 1996 until November 1999 and since that time, I have held the position of President and CEO of that same corporation.
Let me now turn to the Auditor General's report.
[English]
So much has been written about this report over the past two months, and in particular about the value received for the money that was spent. I wish to address this issue in my opening remarks this morning.
The Auditor General's staff spent four months last summer at Canada Post with a mandate to examine the activities and transactions of the corporation during the period starting on January 1, 1996, and ending on May 15, 2003. While the mandate did not include any sponsorship provided or advertising carried out by Canada Post to promote its commercial objectives and policies, it was nevertheless very large in scope. Quite literally, mountains of documents were examined. I can assure you that the corporation's employees made every effort to cooperate and assist in the exercise.
In the end, the Auditor General's comments in relation to Canada Post focused exclusively on two activities: one, our participation as a partner in the Maurice Richard television series; and two, the fact of our having received some federal funding in support of our Stampin' the Future millennium competition. While both of these activities began before I became president and CEO of Canada Post, I'm quite familiar with each of them, and I will be very happy to share what I know with the committee.
Let me begin by addressing two issues that have been troubling me since the Auditor General published her findings. The first concerns the suggestion that Canada Post was somehow central to the federal sponsorship program. This program, as you know very well, was created after the last referendum in Quebec to promote the federal cause in the province of Quebec. I want to say here unequivocally that Canada Post never spent any money for that purpose. We act as a good corporate citizen in Quebec, as we do in every province of this country. Our market is all of Canada, and our activities consistently reflect that fact.
This brings me to the second issue that has so concerned me in reading the public comments that have been directed at Canada Post over the past two months. That issue concerns value for money. I cannot speak for others, and certainly not for the Government of Canada, but I can say with absolute certainty that the money Canada Post invested in the two initiatives was for services that were very valuable to our corporation.
Let me turn now to these two activities. I will begin with the Maurice Richard series. The producer, Mr. Robert Scully, approached Canada Post directly in late 1997. The project he was proposing had particular appeal to us. First of all, it dealt with Maurice Richard, one of the great icons of Canadian popular culture, whose story was certain to have a very large audience. Equally important, the timing of the Maurice Richard series coincided with several stamp launches that Canada Post had underway or that were planned. The Maurice Richard series was produced in 1997-98 and first aired in 1999. It has been broadcast on a number of occasions since then and has already reached an audience of over two million in French Canada alone. In fact, the film is being shown at the Museum of Civilization at this very moment as part of the Maurice Richard exhibition. I invite you all to go and see this film during your time off.
In 1997 Canada Post conducted a stamp launch to commemorate the 1972 Canada-U.S.S.R. series, the “series of the century”. The stamp launch was very successful. It included engaging many of the hockey stars from that series in events and promotional activities related to the stamps and in visiting our various plants across the country, meeting employees, signing autographs, and doing activities to promote our good image.
Á (1115)
In 2000 Canada Post conducted a stamp launch to commemorate hockey legends. The stamp series launch was designed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the NHL all-star game, which was played in Toronto. Following on the success of the Maurice Richard series, Mr. Richard himself attended the NHL all-star stamp launch. Given the importance of Canadian hockey to the corporation's advertising and branding, the opportunity to support the Maurice Richard series and advertise during its airing was entirely consistent with Canada Post's objectives. In fact, it was viewed as a perfect preamble to the NHL all-star stamp launch. This stamp series, by the way, continues to be very important for the corporation, having generated over $10 million in revenue since 2000.
Let me add that we were not alone in believing this was a good promotional vehicle. Chrysler Canada, BCE, Hydro-Québec, and Manulife were also participating partners.
This was not part of the federal sponsorship program. Canada Post contributed to the Maurice Richard series directly from its marketing and advertising budget. We did not receive any money from the CCSB. We did not use a middleman or advertising/communication company in any manner relating to this series. We made a business decision. We contracted with and paid the producer directly, and I will add that we received valuable publicity and advertising in return. This included 24 half-minute advertising spots, billboard mentions at the beginning of the broadcast, six mentions when going to commercials, 18 mentions when returning from commercials, and five mentions at the end of the film in the credits.
If the Auditor General or anyone else thinks Canada Post should not have participated in the Maurice Richard series, I must respectfully disagree. If the Auditor General or anyone else believes we did not get value for the money we invested, I will again respectfully disagree. The suggestion that it was related to the sponsorship program is simply wrong.
Now let me turn briefly to the other case raised in the Auditor General's report that involved Canada Post, the Stampin' the Future competition. For some reason, the Auditor General does not use this name, preferring to call it by the French description,
[Translation]
Concours création de timbres (Stamp-Design Competition),
[English]
in both French and English versions of the report. Nonetheless, all of us at Canada Post know it as Stampin' the Future,
[Translation]
Timbrons l'avenir
[English]
This was an international stamp design competition for young people, intended to increase their interest in stamps and in stamp collections. It was initiated by the U.S. Postal Service and aimed at children aged 8 to 12, and 37 countries participated in this project. I am particularly familiar with this project because when we were approached in 1997 about participating I was chairman of the board. It is customary for the person holding that position to chair the stamp advisory committee and to have a role in the corporation's philatelic activities. When I took on this role, I saw a major opportunity to help Canada Post improve its profile, particularly with sports groups, cultural organizations, and youth.
Á (1120)
To support this group, we significantly increased the public relations activities around stamp launches and injected more creativity into the program. Initially we used external suppliers, but over time Canada Post developed enough internal expertise to do almost all of our stamp launches in-house.
In 1996 our philatelic group generated around $11 million in revenue, and since then this amount has grown steadily. Last year, in 2003, we generated around $33 million from stamp enthusiasts and philatelists thanks to the focus that has been given to this area.
When the chance to participate in Stampin' the Future was presented to the stamp advisory committee in early 1998, they readily agreed that this was the type of activity Canada Post should be involved in. The effort began in 1998 and lasted through to July 2000, when the winning designs were announced at a special millennium ceremony in Ottawa.
The competition was of a magnitude unlike anything we had ever attempted. It reached every school board, every provincial minister of education, and every post office, school, and public library across the country. We reached out to thousands of educators and hundreds of thousands of children throughout Canada. We even developed tools to help teachers integrate educational elements of the contest into their lessons.
The response was tremendous. Some 57,000 children were engaged and enthusiastic enough to send us designs that spoke to their visions of the future. We held events in every province and territory to honour the 120 semi-finalists. A group of 29 finalists and their families were brought to Ottawa for a three-day visit that included a gala dinner and award ceremonies. The four winners were honoured at the millennium Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill. It was an unforgettable experience for these children, for their families, and for all of us at Canada Post.
Excluding the significant in-kind contributions we received from partners like IBM, McGraw-Hill, and Quebecor, the total cost of the two-and-a-half-year effort was more than $1 million.
In the course of finding partners for Stampin' the Future, Lafleur Communications, our agency of record for stamp launches, suggested that this project would be an ideal candidate for funding from the Government of Canada's millennium partnership program. We asked Lafleur Communications to pursue the opportunity and were gratified when we learned that the project had been accepted. We received $521,739 from the federal government. All of this money was well spent on the delivery of this worthwhile project.
Let me make it clear that Lafleur Communications worked hard for the money they were paid by Canada Post. Their mandate included developing and overseeing the production, printing, and distribution of the bilingual contest promotional materials to schools and post offices; obtaining mailing lists of all grades one-to-five schools in Canada; developing lesson plans for use by teachers; organizing the press conference to announce the launch of the program; assisting with the management of the gala dinner, award ceremonies, and announcement of winners; and obtaining the necessary licences to conduct a contest in certain provinces.
The firm's work on the project was tightly managed by our director of stamp marketing, who consistently ensured that the work was on budget, or remained under budget. In other words, we had a highly professional business arrangement that was managed to achieve results.
Á (1125)
In conclusion, I want to say a word about the impact of all of these allegations on Canada Post and on how the corporation operates today. The issues we are discussing have wounded our employees very deeply. Since the publication of the Auditor General's report, there has been a cloud of suspicion that tarnishes the good reputation of Canada Post and the professionalism of its people. This situation is not a fair reflection of reality.
When I became president and CEO, I instituted a number of measures in early 2000 to improve certain processes, and I am disappointed that the Auditor General's report makes no mention of present practices. The most important change involved a major business transformation to re-engineer our business processes and systems. This change enabled Canada Post to significantly improve many of the processes associated with contracting, managing supplier relationships, and paying suppliers for work performed. The system includes a highly automated series of checks and balances that will not allow a transaction to proceed without the appropriate authorities and signatures in place. In short, it has made the requisitioning of services more formal, transparent, and rigorous. Today, relationships with all advertising and marketing agencies are governed by formal contracts that must correspond to the delegation of authorities.
There have also been improvements in other areas. Since I took the position of president and CEO, we have been able to conclude eight consecutive collective agreements with our four unions without losing a single day to work stoppages. This is a far cry from the days when Canada Post was synonymous with poisonous labour relations. At the same time, we have improved service delivery and on-time performance in all parts of Canada.
During my time as CEO of Canada Post, the corporation has been consistently profitable. Since 2000, we have paid the Government of Canada a significant amount of money, including $147 million in dividends, approximately $139 million in federal income tax alone--not adding the in lieu of tax for the province--and returning $200 million in contributed capital. Our annual report was tabled in Parliament a few days ago. In the past year, we achieved a record $253 million profit, generating a dividend of more than $63 million to Canadian taxpayers.
I believe that the record reflects well on the 60,000 dedicated Canadians who work for Canada Post and on the highly competent senior management team I have the privilege to lead. I deeply regret that this situation might overshadow what they have accomplished. I'm hopeful that the clarification I can provide today will ensure that their enormous achievement receives the tribute it so richly deserves.
Á (1130)
[Translation]
If I may, I wish to conclude on a personal note. The past almost two months have been a living hell for my family and me. As a result of the Auditor General's criticism of Canada Post's participation in the Maurice Richard series and “Stampin' the Future” project, I find myself suspended from my post as President and CEO.
The reputation of the Corporation has been damaged, our 60 000 employees are suffering and this, despite the extraordinary achievements of recent years.
This is the first occasion I have had to comment on this arbitrary decision. I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to offer my perspective and I am hopeful that you will agree that the decisions taken by Canada Post with regard to the Maurice Richard series and the “Stampin' the Future” competition were fully justified.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ouellet.
Going back to your comment about the Auditor General making no mention of present practices, I'm sure you'll agree she was only auditing one particular transaction and not Canada Post as a whole.
However, that being said, Mr. MacKay, eight minutes, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Thank you for being here, Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Heenan.
[English]
Before I get into some more specific questions, I want to go back, Mr. Ouellet, to questions put to you by the chair at the outset pertaining to any discussions you've had with those still in the employ of Canada Post. Keeping in mind your current status of being under suspension, I'm not going to ask you questions about that for obvious reasons, the legal implications. But I do have concerns with respect to ongoing contact you've had within Canada Post since the time of the suspension and in preparation for today's hearings. Would you agree that the board of directors gave you some admonition or warning that you were to have no ongoing contact within Canada Post during the period of this suspension? Is that correct?
Á (1135)
Hon. André Ouellet: I'll be very clear on this. I've had no contact with Canada Post employees since I was suspended. I've refrained from talking to anybody, and I've refrained from speaking about Canada Post activities. I didn't talk to anybody at all about my appearance here.
What I did, though, is speak to the lawyer who was appointed to help me. Indeed, I prepared myself in order to be able to respond to your questions, because as you know, how can I come here and talk to you if I haven't had a chance to get some documentation?
I was told in a letter I was suspended, and I was told in another letter I could not go back to my office, I could not talk to anybody at the post office, and I could not say anything. They only thing they allowed me was to go to a post office to buy stamps.
Mr. Peter MacKay: My question is, did that direction come from the board of directors, Mr. Ouellet? Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, I received a letter from the chair.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're telling us today the only contact made with anyone under the auspices of Canada Post was with your lawyer, Mr. Heenan.
Hon. André Ouellet: There was Mr. Heenan and there was the chair of the board, because I talked to her and I told her, look, I've been invited to appear before the committee; how can I go before the committee if I don't have any documents? I mean, I cannot return to my office, and I have no documents at home.
So she called, I suspect, the legal counsel at Canada Post. The legal counsel at Canada Post contacted Mr. Heenan, and somebody from the staff of the legal counsel took documentation to Mr. Heenan in order for him to help me to appear before you.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Is that Gerard Power? Did you have any contact directly or indirectly with Gerard Power?
Hon. André Ouellet: At the request of Madam Albo, the chair of Canada Post, Mr. Power called to confirm to me that Mr. Heenan would be my lawyer. I was very pleased and very honoured that Mr. Heenan agreed to help me in this endeavour.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you did speak directly with Gerard Power.
Hon. André Ouellet: He called me.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And Mr. Heenan, your counsel, had done some work for Canada Post before. You've been familiar with Mr. Heenan, obviously, for a number of years.
Hon. André Ouellet: He's a great labour lawyer. He has helped Canada Post in many instances, and indeed he earns the money we pay him.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Now, did you have any contact with the general manager of parliamentary relations, Jeremy Cotton?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes. Mr. Cotton is here--he's right behind me--and he's the one who took the documentation to Mr. Heenan to help us to prepare ourselves.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And Mr. Cotton is an employee of Canada Post.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, and he was under direction from Mr. Power to come and assist Mr. Heenan in the preparation for my appearance here today.
Mr. Peter MacKay: What about a Ms. Manon Tardif?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I never talked to her.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're acknowledging you had direct contact with the general counsel of Canada Post, Gerard Power. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: He called me and indicated to me that Mr. Heenan would be the one assisting me. It was a conversation of three minutes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And then he was in contact with your counsel--to the best of your knowledge.
Hon. André Ouellet: Sure. Otherwise, I would not have had any documents to answer your questions.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I just want to be clear on this, Mr. Ouellet. Canada Post counsel has been assisting Mr. Heenan, your lawyer, in preparation for today's hearing. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Sure.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, and you were also in contact with the general manager of parliamentary relations for Canada Post, Mr. Jeremy Cotton, who is also here today.
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I was not in contact with him. He is the one who was asked by Mr. Power to come to assist Mr. Heenan by giving him the appropriate documentation that I need in order to respond to you today.
Á (1140)
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I have very grave concerns that members of Canada Post have continued to be in contact with Mr. Ouellet, the witness here today—
Hon. André Ouellet: This is absolutely untrue, sir. This is not true. I have told you that I called the chair of Canada Post. Listen to me. Don't misinterpret what I'm telling you.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm listening to you, sir. I asked you some very direct questions, Mr. Ouellet.
Hon. André Ouellet: I am telling you that after I was asked to appear before this committee, I called Madame Albo and said to her, how can I go to this committee? I don't have any documents. I don't even have the report of the Auditor General, so—
Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, Mr. Ouellet, are you here as an individual, currently under suspension from Canada Post, or are you here as a representative of Canada Post? What is your understanding of the testimony you're about to give today?
Hon. André Ouellet: Look, we cannot dissociate.... I think I'm here as an individual, because you asked me to appear as an individual. But if I'm here as an individual, I have nothing to tell you.
Mr. Peter MacKay: But if you're here as an individual and you're receiving an invitation—
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm here because I was, until I was suspended, a full-fledged president and CEO of Canada Post. Frankly, I hope that in the very near future I'll be back as president and CEO of Canada Post.
The Chair: Okay, Mr. MacKay.
I think when I first asked you, Mr. Ouellet, if you had any contact—and the statement I read was about any contact with, or whether you discussed or had any meetings with any employees of the Government of Canada or any members of the committee, and I included Canada Post—you said no, that you did not. I asked about legal advice and you told us that yes, legal advice had been provided by Mr. Heenan.
Now you're saying you had discussions with....
Mr. Peter MacKay: Jeremy Cotton, general manager of parliamentary relations, Canada Post.
The Chair: Yes, Jeremy Cotton.
So let me put the question to you again. How many people at Canada Post have you had discussions with, either yourself or through your lawyer, Mr. Heenan, regarding your appearance here this morning? Is there anybody else besides Mr. Cotton and the lawyer—what was the lawyer's name?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Gerard Power.
The Chair: Gerard Power. Okay.
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, if you have difficulty hearing or understanding, I'll repeat.
I called the chair of Canada Post, Madame Albo, told her that I had to appear here, that I could not go back to my office, that I had no documents whatsoever, and said, how can I go to appear before this committee without having any documents and having any advice? I see that others are coming and they are represented by lawyers. Madame Albo said yes, I think you're right; we have to find a way. She called Mr. Power, and Mr. Power, I suppose on the recommendation of Madame Albo, contacted Mr. Heenan to help me. Mr. Heenan said yes, I'm ready to go there to help Mr. Ouellet, but in order to go there and help Mr. Ouellet, I have to have some documentation, some information. He was asked to meet Jeremy Cotton to help him prepare to assist me.
These are the people who have been involved, nobody else.
The Chair: Nobody else?
Hon. André Ouellet: Nobody else.
The Chair: That's two people, plus the chairperson of the board. Okay, we'll continue.
Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can be of some assistance if I can pose this question to Mr. Ouellet.
Mr. Ouellet, you're listed on today's agenda as appearing as an individual. I would take that to mean that as you are suspended from your official capacities with Canada Post, you cannot be here in any other respect except as an individual.
However, in light of what you have testified in response to Mr. MacKay's questions, is the committee to understand that you are here authorized by Canada Post to appear and testify on its behalf in addition to testifying on your own behalf?
Hon. André Ouellet: If I understand correctly, I was asked to appear here to respond to the two cases that were highlighted in the Auditor General's report. These two incidents referred to activities done by Canada Post. So draw your conclusions. I'm here to respond to the two incidents referred to in the Auditor General's report. I don't think you would have called me otherwise.
Á (1145)
The Chair: I appreciate that, but Mr. Walsh, our law clerk of the House of Commons, specifically asked, are you authorized by Canada Post to speak on their behalf or are you speaking as an individual based on your recollections of your work at Canada Post? In other words, are you authorized to speak and make commitments on behalf of Canada Post while you're here this morning?
Hon. André Ouellet: I did not receive an authorization from Canada Post to speak on their behalf, but since these two incidents refer to the period when I was at Canada Post, and I guess you're asking me questions about that time, then, I mean, I'll give you my personal view and interpretation of these two cases.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to clarify something with you, sir. Are you telling the counsel--
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
The Chair: During Mr. MacKay's time he turned to me for advice, and I had interaction with Mr. Ouellet and the law clerk and so on. For that we'd normally stop the clock, so Mr. MacKay has two minutes and fifteen seconds left.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Are these individuals--Mr. Power, and Mr. Cotton, who is here, and Mr. Heenan--whom you now acknowledge you have spoken to, being paid by Canada Post? Are they being paid by the taxpayer to give you advice in this matter?
Hon. André Ouellet: First of all, I would like to correct something. You say “paid by the taxpayer”. Canada Post is a crown corporation that makes a profit, that does not receive money from the taxpayers of Canada. In fact, in my presentation I elaborate on the fact that we return hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Canada. So nobody that you mention--
Mr. Peter MacKay: Are they government employees?
Hon. André Ouellet: --is paid by the taxpayers of Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Are they government employees, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Are they government employees? Do they receive their cheque with a little Canada flag on the corner, which says they're paid by the government?
Hon. André Ouellet: Whether the flag is on the corner or not, these people are not paid by the taxpayers of Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I see. That's your interpretation.
Hon. André Ouellet: It's not my interpretation, it's fact.
Mr. Peter MacKay: They're not government employees, then. You're telling us that.
Hon. André Ouellet: No, they're employees of Canada Post.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I see.
Now, did you speak to other individuals, as the chair asked you, and did they provide you with any documents for today's testimony?
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, through my lawyer I got a series of documents that I need to be able to answer your questions.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you were provided documents from Canada Post in preparation for today's testimony.
Hon. André Ouellet: As I told you, since I was suspended I couldn't return to my office. I didn't even have a copy of the Auditor General's report.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That's not my question, sir. With the greatest respect, do you have any documents in your possession that were provided to you by individuals in the employ of Canada Post, yes or no?
Hon. André Ouellet: I told you that I got these documents from Mr. Heenan.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. So your understanding is that they came from either Mr. Power or Mr. Cotton--
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: --who are employed by Canada Post.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So your answer is yes. You have documents from Canada Post provided by individuals in the employ of Canada Post.
Hon. André Ouellet: These were my documents referring to the two incidents the Auditor General was talking about.
Mr. Peter MacKay: On the matter, Mr. Chair, I have a document that I would like to table with the committee. It was provided to me anonymously.
I would also like to request of the chair the possibility of having this witness placed under oath for his testimony today.
The Chair: You can table the document. You can give it to the clerk.
We require a motion of the committee, Mr. MacKay, to place the witness under oath. Do you so move?
Mr. Peter MacKay: I so move that the witness be placed under oath.
The Chair: I don't think we need a debate on that. I'll just call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
Á (1150)
The Chair: Okay, we're going to suspend for a few minutes until we get a Bible--New Testament, Old Testament?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Ask if he wants one. It could be a solemn affirmation.
Á (1150)
Á (1155)
The Chair: Okay, I'll call this back to session.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Are you going to do the swearing in first?
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Are you circulating copies?
The Chair: No. We're going to do this first, and then we'll take some necessaries. This is important.
Go ahead.
The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Ouellet, the evidence you shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chairman, since this is the first time we've done this, I would have thought it would be proper to put the reasons for it forward prior to the vote. Could we get an explanation from Mr. MacKay for why we're treating this witness differently from any other witnesses who have come before this committee?
The Chair: I'm not sure if it's appropriate, Mr. Lastewka. I know in a court of law it's done automatically. Mr. Walsh was actually going to be addressing this committee tomorrow on the issue of whether we should be doing it for everybody or not. Mr. MacKay feels it's appropriate. We passed the motion, and I don't think we need Mr. MacKay to put on the record why he feels that way. We'll be having this discussion tomorrow in camera with Mr. Walsh, and we can make a decision.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with you. I think it would be proper for Mr. MacKay to explain his reasoning for wanting to treat this witness differently from any other witness. I don't think you, as the chair, should be on one side.
The Chair: I would side with you too, Mr. Lastewka, in the same situation. As I said, in a court of law it's just done automatically. Everybody is taken to be telling the truth, but one swears an oath before they start.
Do you have anything to say, Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Rob Walsh: Let me offer this, Mr. Chairman. The member made his motion, it's been adopted by the committee. It would have perhaps been in order prior to the adoption of the motion to have some discussion along the lines Mr. Lastewka is suggesting, but the motion has been carried now.
On behalf of the committee, I can tell the witness that calling upon a witness to swear an oath is certainly within the powers of the committee, and it ought not to be taken by the witness as an inference that his testimony is more questionable than that of any other witness who might appear in front of this committee. It is something the committee is wrestling with, the application of the oath provisions. The committee, on this occasion, has chosen to do so. It should be simply taken as a procedural step.
The Chair: Mr. Thibault.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): I accept the explanation given by the clerk. I would have thought that when we were giving unanimous consent, we were giving unanimous consent to the member for putting the motion. I didn't realize we were doing the motion quite so quickly.
That aside, the member made the motion based on a document he's presented. Members don't have that document--
The Chair: The document has since been tabled with the chair. Madam Jennings has suggested that it be made available to Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Heenan. We'll give them a few minutes to read it over. It is in one language only, so it must be translated and tabled appropriately with the committee. It will be translated at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Mills?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, could you help me out here? I have been diligent in my attendance at this committee over the last nine weeks. I presumed all of the witnesses who were coming in front of us were telling us what they knew, the truth. Tell me, from your chairmanship role here, what constitutes a difference here from everyone else we've heard?
 (1200)
The Chair: You may recall, Mr. Mills--it came up last week--that we were talking about putting people under oath. We're going to discuss this in camera tomorrow. There is nothing stopping--
Mr. Dennis Mills: Will we have to start over?
The Chair: --the committee putting people under oath. As a member of this committee, not as a chair, I have had witnesses put under oath on previous occasions. Therefore, it should, in my opinion, not be an unusual circumstance to put people under oath when we are investigating issues such as we are currently investigating.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I think this goes to Mr. Lastewka's point as to why Mr. MacKay, who's been attending most of these meetings, is making a differentiation here. It's the first time he's ever asked for a witness to come under oath. I presumed everyone coming here was just telling us the truth.
The Chair: We do assume that, Mr. Mills, and nobody's making any suggestions that it's not the case today. I did actually mention that in a court of law, where we assume everybody is telling the truth, they are automatically put under oath.
The clerk has just given me Beauchesne's section 859: “Any committee of the House may order its witnesses to be examined on Oath. In addition, the House of Commons may at any time order witnesses to be examined on Oath before any committee.”It goes on in section 860.
We had the motion. The motion was carried. I'm prepared to move ahead.
Mr. Lastewka.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I just want to make one last remark, Mr. Chair. We all agreed that we were going to have this discussion tomorrow. I find it very suspicious that this would be brought forward today. That's why I felt that at least it would be a courtesy of Mr. MacKay to explain that to the committee. I find it very suspicious.
The Chair: Mr. Thibault is next, and then Madam Jennings.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault: My comment is about the tabling of this document. As far as I know, unanimous consent is required whenever someone tables a document in a single language. This was not requested, and a document has been tabled in a single language. This committee functions in the country's two official languages, and as members of this committee, we do not have access now to this document. One member of the committee has read the document, which will now be part of the committee's proceedings; however, none of the other members of the committee have seen the document in question.
[English]
The Chair: The document will be translated at the earliest opportunity, Mr. Thibault. Because Mr. MacKay seemed to be quoting from that document at the end of his time, he tabled the document. We have accepted the document and will have it translated.
However, because it might affect the witnesses, it was felt appropriate that they have a copy of it. Then how do we stop it from being available to everybody else? I appreciate your point, and as I said, we will have it translated at the earliest opportunity. Then it will be before the committee.
But Mr. McKay has the document, and he's perfectly capable of quoting from it at length, with nobody else having access to it....
Mr. Dennis Mills: Maybe you should read it all.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Chairman, it was agreed—or rather the chair agreed—that the document be tabled in a single language. I imagine that requires unanimous consent.
[English]
The Chair: I've accepted the document and I've ordered it to be translated. That way, wherever it came from, it will be translated and be before the committee as soon as it's translated. At that time, when it comes back, I will table it.
Madam Jennings.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, it is clear that Mr. MacKay intends to ask some questions based on this document, as he has already done. So, in the interest of fairness to the witness, he should be given a copy of the document, through his lawyer, and I think we should suspend our proceedings for at least 15 minutes—I would prefer a half hour, but I am not sure my colleagues will support that—to give his counsel an opportunity to review the document, discuss it and be prepared to answer Mr. MacKay's questions. Clearly, no one other than myself has received a copy of this document from Mr. MacKay. Therefore, no one else can ask questions on it.
 (1205)
[English]
The Chair: I appreciate that, Madam Jennings, and I do think it's only fair and appropriate that the witness have the document.
I'm thinking that if Mr. MacKay is the only person who really has it--and you--that no questions should be asked about the document--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I think that's perfect.
The Chair: --until lunchtime, when we'll be breaking for an hour or more. At that time they will have the opportunity to read the document.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I will provide the copy that Mr. MacKay provided to me, at my request, to Mr. Ouellet, and perhaps then we can--
The Chair: If you could do that....
Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay: I completely agree with Madam Jennings as far as fairness to the witness, Mr. Ouellet, and all committee members is concerned. I just received the document this morning--I want to be very clear on this--just prior to coming to this committee.
I want to ensure that any document that's in circulation has the top portion removed. The copy I have is blacked out, but I have concerns about disclosure issues of the origin of this. I would suggest that it go to translation, in fairness to all members, and Mr. Thibault in particular. But the suggestion that Mr. Heenan and Mr. Ouellet be given an opportunity to review the document prior to any further questioning is only fair and appropriate.
The Chair: Okay, there will be no questions on the document. We will have it translated, and it will be here after lunch. In the meantime, perhaps copies can be given to Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Heenan. There will be no questions on the document until after lunch.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Are you going to break now to give them...?
The Chair: No. They can look at it at lunchtime.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, please, for eight minutes.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, the reason I suggested--
The Chair: Is this a point of order, Madam Jennings?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. I don't wish to appeal your decision to allow the questioning to begin, but I would ask you to consider that decision.
As you can see--it's a perfectly normal reaction--Mr. Ouellet and his lawyer are immediately attempting to read the document to get a sense of what it's about. That means their attention is not on whatever questions Monsieur Desrochers or any subsequent member may ask. That's why I suggested breaking for at least 15 minutes so they can read the document. Your decision that no questions based on that document be asked until the translated copies are available is a good decision.
But perhaps just break so that.... I mean, it's a human reaction. There's a document they've been provided, and they, you know....
The Chair: We're not going to break for 15 minutes, Madam Jennings.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Ten minutes? Five minutes?
The Chair: We'll just give him a few more minutes to look it over and then we'll resume.
Monsieur Guimond will commence with his time, because Mr. MacKay's time is over.
I think they've skimmed the document already.
[Translation]
You have eight minutes, Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Ouellet.
My question will not be about the document as such. I would like to come back to the series of questions asked by my colleague, Mr. MacKay, and ask you quite a simple question.
Who is paying your counsel, Mr. Heenan? Is he being paid by you or by the Canada Post Corporation for the time he spends here this morning?
Hon. André Ouellet: He will be paid by Canada Post.
Mr. Michel Guimond: He will be paid by Canada Post. Why did you have to consult him? Was it because you had not discussed this before and you just decided on that? Why did you consult him on that? Did you not know the answer to the question?
Hon. André Ouellet: It is true that I did not know whether Mr. Heenan would be working pro bono or whether he would be receiving his fees from Canada Post. I asked him whether he would be sending Canada Post a bill, and he told me that he would be paid by Canada Post.
Mr. Michel Guimond: In any case, Mr. Heenan is often retained by the federal government. I am sure he does not always work free of charge.
In any case, I will now return to my initial series of questions. Mr. Ouellet, in 1980, you were the Minister of the Post Office and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is that correct?
 (1210)
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Were you the political minister responsible for Quebec in 1980?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Who was?
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Lalonde.
Mr. Michel Guimond: It was not Mr. Chrétien?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I am reading your political CV. In 1995, more specifically on May 13, 1995, you were appointed Minister of External Affairs and the Minister responsible for the Francophonie. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Were you also the political minister for Quebec?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So, at the time of the 1995 referendum, you were the political minister for Quebec. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: During his in-camera testimony, Mr. Guité made a statement regarding the three Groupaction reports. He said and I quote:
| ...we may have strayed a little from the mandate set out for these reports... |
He is referring to the three Groupaction reports.
| ...but once again, it was for a good cause. We were at war and we did not want to disclose our plan of attack. |
Was that your feeling at that time as the Quebec lieutenant?
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm sorry, but in which year were these reports mentioned by Mr. Guité written?
Mr. Michel Guimond: He is referring to three reports written by Groupaction in 1997, I believe.
Hon. André Ouellet: You should ask clear questions. If you are talking about reports that were written after the referendum, I fail to see what you are getting at.
Mr. Michel Guimond: No.
Hon. André Ouellet: Be a little more rigorous when you ask questions or make statements of facts, Sir.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Ouellet, your role is to answer questions, particularly since an exercise...
Hon. André Ouellet: I would like to ask you for some clarification. You were talking about three reports referred to by Mr. Guité. In what year were those reports written?
Mr. Michel Guimond: After the 1995 referendum, there were...
Hon. André Ouellet: After the 1995 referendum, Mr. Guimond, I was no longer part of the government. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I resigned.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Guité said at the time that they were at war and that he did not want to disclose the plan of attack. He said they were at war at the time of the 1995 referendum.
Do you agree with these comments as the political minister responsible for Quebec at the time of the 1995 referendum?
Hon. André Ouellet: I believe Mr. Guité was referring to activities that occurred after the referendum, not before. You should check your facts.
Mr. Michel Guimond: On May 30, 2002, in Winnipeg, Mr. Jean Chrétien made the following comments about the sponsorship program scandal:
[English]
| Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process. It is possible. |
[Translation]
He also said:
[English]
| ...we have established the stability of Canada as a united country. |
[Translation]
So Mr. Chrétien said that a few million dollars might have been stolen, but this was done to save the country.
Did you share that view as the minister responsible for the 1995 referendum?
Hon. André Ouellet: Once again, your are confused about the dates. The Sponsorship Program started after the referendum, not before.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Guité said he spent $8 million during the 1995 referendum. I could also quote the following passage:
| I telephoned people in the media in Montreal— |
He bought up all the outside advertising billboards available and in this regard, he said:
| In this way, we covered Quebec with legitimate ads for federal programs. |
Is that what Mr. Guité was referring to when he talked about a war?
Hon. André Ouellet: You're talking about two different things here. You are referring to the pre-referendum period, when billboards were purchased—
Mr. Michel Guimond: That was during the 1995 referendum.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, that was during and before the referendum. Obviously, the work done at that time by the federalist forces was commensurate with expenses incurred by the Parti québécois government at the time in its efforts to put forward the pro-independence option.
 (1215)
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Ouellet, I'm now going to quote some comments you made about separatists in an interview published in La Presse on Friday, January 26, 1996. Let us put things in context: you have left the government, and were the Chairman of the board of directors of Canada Post.
This is what you said:
| In any country they would have been beating up and put in prison. Some countries would even have shot them. |
Is it possible you would have said such a thing? If so, do you still agree with these remarks?
Hon. André Ouellet: I made this statement at the time of the first referendum, when I was a young, very impulsive member of Parliament.
One again, you are mixed up on dates, Mr. Guimond. I don't know whether you are doing so deliberately or whether your researcher, who is advising you, made an error in his research. I made this statement in a speech to the House of Commons at the time of the first referendum.
That was a long time before January 1996. You may have taken the quotation from a newspaper article published in 1996 that referred to comments I made some 10 years earlier.
Le président: Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Proulx, please, for eight minutes.
[English]
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Good afternoon, Mr. Ouellet. Good afternoon, Mr. Heenan.
Hon. André Ouellet: Good afternoon, Mr. Proulx.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Welcome to the committee, and thank you for agreeing to testify here.
If I may, Mr. Ouellet, I would like to talk about the two cases mentioned by the auditor general.
With respect to the first case, you're saying in your opening remarks that the corporation had been approached in 1997 by Mr. Scully. At that time, if I recall correctly, you were the Chairman of the board of directors of Canada Post? Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: At that time, as the Chairman of the Board of Canada Post, did you take part in decisions such as the one about the series on Maurice Richard?
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Scully came to see the President of Canada Post, Mr. Clermont. He also met with Mr. Guilbert, the Vice-President of Communications, and he came to see me, as the Chairman of the board of directors. I think he was trying to convince as many people at Canada Post as possible that it would be a good idea to be involved in this film project.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Ouellet, were you involved in Canada Post's decision to take part in—?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, because I did not have the authority to hand out such a contract. I certainly recommended that we be involved in the project, but since I did not have the decision-making authority, it was the Vice-President of Marketing and Sales who authorized the contract, which was approved by the then president.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: On your recommendation or suggestion?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I believe the three of us were in full agreement that it was a good project.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: My first question is based on what you said in your statement. The auditor general told us that she could not find in Canada Post's documents any type of study or reason for Canada Post to be involved in this program.
As far as you know, had any study or analysis being carried out, or was there any reason why Canada Post wanted to be commercially involved with the project, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: I believe I gave a detailed explanation at the start of my statement as to why our marketing people thought it was a good initiative.
 (1220)
Mr. Marcel Proulx: But is there a written record on the subject, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course. What I find unfortunate is that Canada Post provided the auditor general's staff with all the information and we insisted that the project was a commercial decision for us. But her staff continue to claim that it was not a commercial decision, that it was really a sponsorship, and they claimed that we did not follow the normal procedure for sponsorships. But it so happens that we did not follow the normal sponsorship procedures because we did not think it was a sponsorship.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Scully came to you. As you know, the episode on the Maurice Richard series cost $4,755,218. Canada Post made a direct payment, without going through anyone else, of $1,625,000. Did you know at the time you took your decision that the balance would be paid through the Government of Canada's sponsorship program?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: You thought you would be the only sponsor or participant within government.
Hon. André Ouellet: No. We were told that there would also be private sector representatives. In fact, I provided the names of some of these people.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.
Hon. André Ouellet: We were also told that VIA Rail might also come on board, but that decision was none of our business.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, that's fine.
Hon. André Ouellet: We took our own decision ourselves—
Mr. Marcel Proulx: But who told you that? Was it Mr. Scully?
Hon. André Ouellet: We asked Mr. Scully.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine.
Hon. André Ouellet: We asked Mr. Scully who the other partners would be, and he told us.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Ouellet, if I may, I would like to talk about another issue, because I only have about two minutes left. I would like to discuss the other matter, that is, the stamp design contest for which the auditor general seems to have invented a new name. As regards the Stamp-in the Future program, you said in your statement that you received funding, through Lafleur Communication, from the Government of Canada's millennium partnership program.
Apart from that particular program, as far as you know, did you receive any money from this sponsorship program?
Hon. André Ouellet: When we were told at the time that we could get funding from the government, our reaction was to think that it came from the millennium program, because, if you remember, the Government of Canada—
Mr. Marcel Proulx: I remember very well.
Hon. André Ouellet: —was encouraging people to initiates special millennium activities and was giving grants to various organizations and groups to celebrate the millennium.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Ouellet—
Hon. André Ouellet: So we thought the money came from that program.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: When did you find out that the funding did not come from the Government of Canada's Millennium Partnership's program, but rather from the Sponsorship Program? According to the auditor general, you said you knew that other funding came from this Sponsorship Program?
Hon. André Ouellet: I only found out afterwards, when we saw the papers showing that the money came from elsewhere.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine. I have one minute left. If I may, I would like to ask you a couple of brief questions.
From 1996 to 2000, who was the external auditor for Canada Post? Was it the current auditor general or a predecessor?
Hon. André Ouellet: Neither. Under the Canada Post Corporation Act, which is a crown corporation, the auditor general is not the external auditor for Canada Post.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right. Did you ever discuss with Minister Alfonso Gagliano, or with members of his political staff, or with Mr. Guité directly, Canada Post's participation in the Maurice Richard series or in the stamp design contest, with funding provided through the Sponsorship Program?
 (1225)
Hon. André Ouellet: I never discussed the issue with Mr. Guité or Mr. Gagliano, because, at the time, he was not the minister responsible.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Who was the minister responsible?
Hon. André Ouellet: It was Ms. Marleau.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Proulx.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Thank you, Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Heenan, for your presence here today.
Mr. Ouellet, you are here not just in your capacity as CEO of—
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, Mr. Ouellet is here as an individual. He is not here as the CEO of Canada Post.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairperson, I'm trying to—
The Chair: We had this clarified earlier on.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll be careful of my words. He's here because of his knowledge about sponsorship arrangements at Canada Post, vis-à-vis the Auditor General's report, but also—
The Chair: Mr. Ouellet will be speaking on his recollections and knowledge on these issues, but he will not speaking as the CEO of Canada Post.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right.
I was going to say you're here also as someone who could give us invaluable insight into what was transpiring in the government of Canada at the time you were a minister, because you were a minister in the cabinet. You were the political minister responsible for Quebec at the height, I would say, of this whole sponsorship fiasco, so it is the collection of your experience and knowledge in all these areas that is important to our committee.
Hon. André Ouellet: I just want to clarify one thing, Madam, when you say “at the height of the scandal”, to use your words: the sponsorship program started in 1996; I was no longer a minister at the time.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We know from previous witnesses that these arrangements pertaining to flowing of government funds to projects via ad agencies had been going on for some time. In fact, we have testimony from a credible whistle-blower, Mr. Allan Cutler, that as early as 1994 there were significant developments in this regard at that point.
As minister in the government at that time, were you informed of some of the problems that were arising as a result of government advertising and sponsorship of events and irregularities at the time? Had you heard of these problems, and did you, on your own, decide to investigate to get to the bottom of them? Did you ask to see Mr. Allan Cutler? Did you take any actions?
Hon. André Ouellet: First of all, I think it has to be crystal clear here that you cannot take events that took place after the referendum and imply that you could know about them before the referendum. I'm sorry; I left politics in January 1996. All of these things you're referring to—and which I believe are in the minutes—took place way after this, so how could I have been aware of any of these things?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But that's where you're wrong--with all due respect, Mr. Ouellet. We are tracking some very serious developments pertaining to sponsorship and advertising that now appear to stretch back to 1993, when you--
Hon. André Ouellet: Now, I want to be very clear. You said Mr. Cutler told you something took place. When and where?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: He's documented it, and we've had lengthy discussions on this.
Hon. André Ouellet: And when was this made public?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It was in 1994.
Hon. André Ouellet: Where? In which department?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could ask some questions now.
The Chair: Well, no. I think Mr. Ouellet's point is appropriate. He's trying to find out something with respect to the allegations you are making. I think what he is saying is that Mr. Cutler made these documents public only a month ago and that until that point in time nobody knew about their existence.
Is that the point you're making, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, my point is that Mr. Cutler indicated to us that he had made attempts to have this situation dealt with. He had raised it with superiors, and it was his belief that in fact it was well known in Ottawa circles that this was happening. So my question is simply--
The Chair: Madam Jennings, on a point of order.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --were you aware--
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please, we have a point of order.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, notwithstanding the vilification some of the journalists may make, it is very important for this committee to protect its credibility.
A member has again completely mischaracterized the testimony we received from a witness, testimony I in a previous proceeding actually read out for clarification in case she had not been here when the witness gave it. Mr. Cutler clearly stated in testimony that he had not brought his concerns to anyone in authority until he had made his formal complaint through the professional institute, and he said he had not done so because there was a process and he had needed to document his testimony. So when the member from the NDP says Mr. Cutler repeatedly attempted to bring it to the attention of people in authority and that it was common knowledge, she is mischaracterizing his testimony.
 (1230)
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you will bear that in mind, and you will bear in mind that Mr. Ouellet did leave the government in January 1996 and, as was said, that the documents Mr. Cutler brought to this committee were only made public a month ago. Ms. Jennings is correct in the fact that the testimony suggests Mr. Cutler first raised the issue within the department in I believe it was May 1996, so your questions to Mr. Ouellet have to reflect these timeframes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, on that point of order, so it doesn't eat into my time--
The Chair: No, the clock is stopped.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --I want to say that I did not discredit this committee by misrepresenting any evidence. I merely suggested that in fact there was reason to believe that Mr. Cutler's concerns were known in circles in the government as early as 1994. My question to Mr. Ouellet was simply was he made aware of any of those concerns and did he take any action.
The Chair: You may put that question to him.
Hon. André Ouellet: I accept the question of the honourable member. I just want to tell her that at the time I was foreign minister of Canada, and indeed I couldn't have had any knowledge of Mr. Cutler's concerns. Certainly something from another department was not my responsibility at all.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's fair enough, although this whole issue is about government funds for sponsorship projects--advertising, commissions, and other expenses--going into the pockets of agencies without there being proper accounting. So my question to you is, were you not only the political minister in Quebec but also in charge of advertising for the Liberal Party in Quebec for a period of time leading up to 1996?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, no. The responsibility of the Quebec leader is to represent the leader of the party in the activities of the Liberal Party of Canada's Quebec section, to meet with party workers, and so on. That has nothing to do with the advertising programs.
Now, here again you're referring to a series of things, and many of these things you talk about are in regard to a program that was created by the federal government after the referendum in order to try to--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Excuse me, Mr. Ouellet, I'm not asking about activities after 1996, I'm asking about the advertising policies of government leading up to--
The Chair: I think Mr. Ouellet answered that question, and he went on to talk about....
Do you want to finish your answer, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: I think my answer was clear.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You in fact had responsibility for advertising of the Liberal Party in the province of Quebec--
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I was in charge--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --as something separate from your responsibilities.
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you have posed a question. You are going to get the answer.
Hon. André Ouellet: I was in charge of political organization in the province of Quebec, but it was nothing to do with the government. That had to do with the Liberal Party of Canada in the province of Quebec. That was my role.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: There are reports that you played a pivotal role in redirecting advertising dollars. There are reports that upon the election of the Liberal government in 1993, you immediately, after being elected as a member of Parliament, informed an advertising firm that was known at that time to be of Conservative orientation that it would no longer be getting advertising dollars from Canada Post. There are reports that you played a key role in shifting advertising immediately from those Tory firms to Liberal firms, which are now in question today in the form of Groupaction, Everest, Lafleur, and so on. You will know more than most people we have had before this committee about the reason this money went from government to these ad agencies for projects, with these middle agencies raking in so much money. We're asking you to shed some light on that process.
Hon. André Ouellet: Madam, you're talking about money being given to companies to administer the sponsorship program. I respectfully tell you that you're taking events after the referendum and making them part of activities before the referendum. That is not correct. I submit to you that you're mixing apples and oranges.
I read the same article you read in the paper saying so-called Conservative firms have indicated that they met with me and didn't get the contracts they wanted. Frankly, I have no idea of having taken away contracts from somebody. I must say the contrary. During all my career I have been very open in trying to have as many people as possible be part of our organizations. We were in the province of Quebec fighting the separatists. It was certainly not my intention to do away with firms that had the same federalist position as us, whether they were Conservative, NDP, or Liberal. We embraced all those that were federalist and supported our cause against the separatists.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
By the way, you made reference to some documents. Would you table these with the clerk, and we will have them translated and distributed?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Proulx.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: We heard the witness saying there was documentation in regard to the benefits these different programs would bring to Canada Post. Could we please ask Canada Post to supply the committee with copies of these documents?
 (1235)
The Chair: We'll add that to the list and get it done for you. We will request them from Canada Post.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you for your help.
The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy, eight minutes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Ouellet, as you know, we are here studying the sponsorship program and the Auditor General's report with respect to the program. When the sponsorship program originated, you were the Liberal Party's political lieutenant for Quebec, is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. The sponsorship program was created in late 1996 or 1997, when I had left politics.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So in spite of Mr. Cutler's remarks to this committee and the fact that there was a unity fund, your evidence is that there was no sponsorship program until 1996. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: When the sponsorship program was put into place, you were with Canada Post. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was the sponsorship program ever discussed with you by any of the people you knew in government--Mr. Chrétien or any of the other ministers?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So you had no discussions with anybody about the sponsorship program at the time it was put into place. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, and I don't know why they would have talked to me about it. I was no longer in politics.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You were with Canada Post, and the agency of record for Canada Post was Lafleur Communications. Is that correct?
 (1240)
Hon. André Ouellet: There were a number of agencies of record for different activities. There was an agency for--
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Lafleur Communications was the agency for the stamp launch.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: As such, you would have become acquainted with Mr. Lafleur. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: And you would have met with him.
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course. I met with him on a number of occasions with regard to the stamp launch.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Did you ever travel with Mr. Lafleur?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, I did, across the country and the United States with regard to the stamp launch.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Did you ever receive gifts from Mr. Lafleur?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Were you acquainted with Mr. Claude Boulay?
Hon. André Ouellet: I met him on occasion.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Did you ever travel with Mr. Boulay?
Hon. André Ouellet: Never.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What about Jean Breault?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You did not know Mr. Breault?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. I met Mr. Breault later on. But in those days, I didn't know Mr. Breault at all. I met Mr. Breault when he bought Mr. Lafleur's company.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, your evidence on page 4 is that the Canada Post stamp advisory committee readily agreed that the stamp design contest, which started in the U.S., was the sort of activity Canada Post should be involved in. What kind of business plan did they put together to justify that conclusion?
Hon. André Ouellet: It surprised me that they talked about that type of plan in the report of the Auditor General. You ought not to know about the stamp activities of Canada Post to talk about this. I brought for you pictures of all the stamps we produced last year. There are stamps here to commemorate Morley Callaghan, Susanna Moodie, Anne Hébert, and so on.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I have a very limited amount of time. I'm really not interested in the number of stamps that were--
Hon. André Ouellet: I just want to say that three-quarters of our stamps are produced to commemorate celebrations, events, and so on. They're not produced to make money.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With respect, Mr. Ouellet, I'm talking about the stamp design contest, and by your own evidence, Canada Post readily agreed that this was the sort of activity it should be involved in. What kind of plan or report was that conclusion based on?
Hon. André Ouellet: Because it interested young people, we were eager to--
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was there a plan or a report on which that conclusion was based?
Hon. André Ouellet: You do not do a cost-benefit analysis for stamps. You decide to do a stamp--
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This wasn't a stamp. It was a stamp design contest for young people.
Hon. André Ouellet: Sure, and it ended up with four stamps, which became four regular stamps and were issued on Parliament Hill on July 1.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, in another part of your testimony you told this committee—it's on page 3 of your remarks—that Canadian hockey is very important to the corporation's advertising and branding. Surely there has to be some analysis done of what kind of design is of benefit. So what I'm asking you is was there any analysis done of what kind of benefit there was going to be to the corporation from participating in this stamp design contest?
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely. These were discussions that were made both by the stamp advisory committee and by the stamp division of Canada Post. These people look at various options—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But my question, sir, was whether there was a document—a plan, some kind of study or proposal—produced to support the decision to participate. That's all I'm asking. Was there any kind of report, study, or document produced?
 (1245)
Hon. André Ouellet: To think we would have a study, an analysis of this, is not to know how we choose stamp projects in Canada.
The Chair: Ms. Ablonczy did have a fairly specific question, Mr. Ouellet. Was there or was there not a written analysis of the issue?
Hon. André Ouellet: I could supply you the minutes of the stamp advisory committee, who discussed this and thought it was a good project and decided to approve it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So there was no study, analysis, briefing paper, or document in support of it? There was just this oral discussion?
Hon. André Ouellet: I am telling you that three-quarters of the stamps we approve every year do not have that type of thing, because this is not the purpose of the stamp committee and it's not the purpose of Canada Post. If you had to justify these types of things, you would have only a few stamps produced every year.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, you said on page 6 that the work was on budget; you said there was a highly professional business arrangement managed to achieve results—this is what you told us—
Hon. André Ouellet: That's the project.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —but how could you know that, if there was no plan, no analysis, nothing to base this conclusion on? If there was an oral discussion, how did you know that results were achieved? How do you know it was highly professional?
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm sorry, I don't accept this. I have to tell you that Canada Post had a thorough management of the projects. The director of the marketing division met regularly with the agencies to make sure the program was done in a sequence, that the estimates were revised and approved, and of course—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But measured against what benchmarks?
Hon. André Ouellet: —there was a long list of things that had to be done to make sure the documentation was prepared, that it was sent, that it was received by the school boards, that it was given to the teachers who helped the kids design the stamps. There was a thorough process that was followed and approved and executed by Canada Post.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But there was no plan.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy.
Mr. Toews, do you have a point of order?
Hon. André Ouellet: What do you mean no plan? This is the plan. I'm describing to you the plan.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You're talking about a “to do list.”
The Chair: No, no, come on. Order.
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm telling you how it happened. Of course a plan was executed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): There was a plan that was executed. There has to be documentation. I'm sure, Mr. Chair, we can get those documents from Canada Post.
The Chair: We will ask Canada Post for these documents.
Mr. Murphy, please; you have eight minutes.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a short snapper, Mr. Ouellet, before I start my regular questioning, concerning the independent auditor. Canada Post would be required to send audited statements annually. Did the independent auditor at any time comment on either of these two incidents?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: As to my next question, in your opening remarks, Mr. Ouellet, you've given a lengthy presentation--and we thank you for that--regarding the two incidents but also Canada Post, about the good management, the employer relationships, and the profitability, on which, to my personal experience, I tend to agree with you. Everything here has to be taken in context, and I do hope the reputation of Canada Post is not sullied, but....
I'm inclined to agree with you on the Maurice Richard series. Whether it was a sponsorship or part of your direct marketing plan, it seemed to be executed. But with all due respect, the whole other issue needs some questioning and further explanation, sir. In my humble view, it really doesn't get by the smell test.
We have a situation here--and I'll deal with this generally--where we have $600,000 coming from a government program that Canada Post was not really allowed to participate in. Lafleur Communications was given $600,000. There was approximately $70,000 skimmed off for commissions. A cheque was given to Canada Post for $521,739. Canada Post gave the money back to Lafleur Communications and Tremblay Guittet.
I have three questions. First, Canada Post really wasn't eligible for sponsorship funding. Why was it done that way?
Secondly, why was it authorized to structure this transaction in this way, where it appears to me that Lafleur Communications was getting a double commission?
Thirdly, why was not a more vigorous or rigorous contract and documentation trail established so that the whole thing could be given a much better explanation than has been the case here today?
 (1250)
Hon. André Ouellet: I believe when we applied and asked for the money, we felt that we were entitled, like any other organization, to receive money from the government for the millennium project.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: But this wasn't the millennium project.
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, it was. For us, it was a millennium project. This stamp project was part of the things we did for the millennium. So we asked for money, thinking that we were receiving money for a millennium project, like many other organizations received money for millennium projects.
Yes, Lafleur got a commission, but we didn't pay the commission. The commission was paid by the government. We got only the money that I told you we received, $521,000, and we used that money to pay for all the activities surrounding that project.
I told you it cost about $1 million. So we received from the government a certain amount. We received in kind some help from private companies who participated with us in this project, and I can assure you that the two agencies who worked on it were closely monitored. They had a specific mandate and they did the work, and we paid them for the work they did, nothing else.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: But, sir, you say you didn't know, in the first instance.
The first flow-through of the money is the most guilty flow-through. You say you didn't know they got the $78,000 commission. That's my question. Did you know? Did you know they got the $78,000 commission?
Hon. André Ouellet: The commission they got was not paid by us. It was paid by the government.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I realize who paid it, but did you know they got it?
Hon. André Ouellet: We realized it when we saw the document that said here's how the money will be paid: you will send the bill to such agencies, they will sign the contract and they will retain a percentage, and you will get your money.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: So your evidence is that you knew at the time that they got the $78,000 commission.
Hon. André Ouellet: Our people who were running that project realized it, because before they sent the bill they had to know how to do it and who to send the bill to, and we did it in good faith.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I know hindsight is 20/20 vision here, but don't you agree that in hindsight it really doesn't look that good?
Hon. André Ouellet: I accept that it does not look good, and especially the way the Auditor General presented it, it does not look good. But let me tell you that the people at Canada Post who handled that file were quite sure they were doing the thing correctly, and they made sure that the agencies that worked with them on this project were paid only for work done.
The government paid those commissions. That was out of the control of our people.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I accept your evidence that you may have got good value for the $521,739, but going back to the $78,000, did that not raise any red flags?
Hon. André Ouellet: In retrospect, it is very difficult to ask officials who received that money to pass judgment on whether or not that commission should have been paid.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Would you agree with me...? I'll just let you reflect on this. You set yourself up as a private corporation, and I accept that it is a well-managed corporation and that you have every reason to be proud of leading that company and its 60,000 employees, because I deal with them every day.
There's a little incident here with this contract that I personally have a problem with--and I guess it should be taken in context. Do you agree with me that this would raise a lot of eyebrows with your competitors in the private sector--the CEO of the Royal Bank, Imperial Oil, and perhaps your direct competitors, FedEx?
 (1255)
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely.
I accept that, and that's the reason why, when we read the report of the Auditor General, I immediately said--and asked our board of directors--that if it is the wish of the government, we will return the money. We accepted it in good faith. We've looked at it, and we now realize that maybe that money should not have come to us. If that's the case, we're ready to reimburse the government.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: You say the way the Auditor General reported it, and in my view, there's no other way she could have reported it. I think that's the only way to report it, sir. Do you agree with that?
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, sure. She looked at the document and she was able to not only look at our own document.... We had only our own document; we didn't have the Public Works document. We didn't have the document of the other, so we were not privy to the other information that she was able to assemble.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Okay. I misinterpreted. In fairness, you're not suggesting the Auditor General could have reported it any other way, because that's the way I--
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. You were right on the eight-minute mark.
It's just a couple of minutes before one o'clock; therefore, I think what we should do is break for lunch.
Lunch is available in the Commonwealth Room for members and staff, and I'm sure for the witnesses as well, if they want to join us.
We'll reconvene at two o'clock.
 (1256)
¸ (1406)
The Chair: Order, please.
Okay, we're back in session. Before we commence with Mr. Desrochers, who is the next intervener, Mr. Toews has asked that he be recognized.
I should point out that the law clerk has had some discussion with Mr. Heenan and Mr. Ouellet over lunch regarding cabinet confidence. As you know, the cabinet confidence waiver was granted back to July 1996. Mr. Ouellet therefore feels constrained by the cabinet confidence prior to that time, which is appropriate. However, if he feels he's constrained in his answers to the questions by his oath of confidence in cabinet, he will so state and we will respect that at this point in time, because that's the way things are.
It was also pointed out, regarding the final paragraph in Mr. MacKay's e-mail, that it has not come back from translation, but I will distribute it the minute it does come back. The final paragraph deals with a transaction, a purchase by Canada Post, which is not necessarily germane to the Auditor General's report. If Mr. Ouellet feels that is so, then any questions that come up from there may, of course, be directed to Canada Post, because Mr. Ouellet is here as an individual and not as a spokesperson for Canada Post.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, this is not to bore the committee, but from a housekeeping point of view, I just want to have on the record that we would ask the clerk to seek that information from the last two pages of the exchange between Mr. Guité and Sheila Fraser.
The Chair: Yes, okay. I will get to you in a minute, Mr. Mills.
As I said, Mr. Toews had a point he wished to raise.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not exactly sure whether it's a matter of privilege or just a point of order.
There were certain comments made over the Easter long weekend that I think reflect on the activities of this committee. On Easter Sunday I was contacted by a journalist from the Globe and Mail asking me to comment on the statements of the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Reg Alcock, who advised in a CTV interview that an independent auditor had--and I'm summarizing here--requantified the $100 million figure that was brought into question by the Auditor General or that the Auditor General had identified in terms of fees. The journalist told me that Mr. Alcock had indicated to the Canadian public that based on this independent audit by Ernst & Young the real figure was $13 million, and that this had in fact been commissioned by the public accounts committee.
Now, I was not aware of any such independent report by Ernst & Young or any other independent non-governmental agency that had requantified this amount, and I so advised the journalist at that time.
I'm seeking direction here, Mr. Chair, from the chair and from the committee. Are we safe to assume, as I have already assumed so publicly, that no such report exists and that an error was made by the Treasury Board president, as he appears now to have admitted he has made an error? I think Canadians need some clarification on this point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.
You mentioned that the journalist suggested it was the public accounts committee that had authorized this, which is why I would recognize it as a point of order. If it had been just something the President of the Treasury Board had said, I don't think it would have been a point of order, but I don't know the conversation you had.
As far as I'm aware, Mr. Alcock has withdrawn the statement that the number was substantiated by an accounting firm. I'm prepared to leave it at this point, unless Mr. Alcock wishes to inform this committee that it is not factual. I think at this point we'll leave it for Mr. Alcock to take forward or leave where it is.
¸ (1410)
Mr. Vic Toews: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm satisfied to leave it, as long as I have not misinformed anyone by being unaware of some report by Ernst & Young that has been commissioned by the committee.
The Chair: There was nothing commissioned by this committee. The only auditor we have, as we know, is KPMG, which is assisting the committee. They're not doing a forensic audit; they are assisting the committee. That is their role. They will be talking to us tomorrow about how they see us moving forward as they provide their professional guidance.
Mr. Proulx, did you have something to say?
Mr. Marcel Proulx: I just want to question whether this could be a point of order.
The Chair: It's just that he brought in the public accounts; otherwise, I wouldn't have....
Mr. Mills brought to my attention, from the testimony of Mr. Guité that was made public, a discussion between him and the Auditor General, on the record, regarding signing a statement. I mentioned to Mr. Mills that we will contact the Auditor General and see if that document is available.
If you can give that information to the clerk, Mr. Mills, they will follow it up on your behalf.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.
The Chair: We're resuming the interventions with Monsieur Desrochers.
[Translation]
You have eight minutes.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Heenan, thank you for being here today. We are still studying the auditor general's famous report.
Mr. Ouellet, in your opening statement, you said that Lafleur Communication was your agency of record. Is that correct?
Hon. André Ouellet: It was for the stamp design contest.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: How did you come to hire Lafleur Communication?
Hon. André Ouellet: It was on the basis of a recommendation made by the shareholder, the government.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: At that time, did you know that this agency was intimately linked to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You did not know that Lafleur Communication—
Hon. André Ouellet: At the time, I did not know Lafleur Communication.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: When did you find out about Lafleur Communication? When did you meet Mr. Lafleur?
Hon. André Ouellet: I only met Mr. Lafleur when we began the stamp launches; Mr. Lafleur and his employees helped us in that regard.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: How far back did this go, Mr. Ouellet?
Hon. André Ouellet: It goes back to the time I was appointed chairman of the board, which was at the end of 1996 or at the beginning of 1997.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Ouellet, is November 28, 1999 a date which has meaning for you?
Hon. André Ouellet: Frankly, no. Does October 3, 1912 mean anything to you?
Mr. Michel Guimond: You wanted specific dates, and now he's giving them to you!
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Ouellet, were you invited to a sumptuous lunch given by Jean Lafleur? Did you attend?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, indeed. I think you already asked that question of several people who have testified before this committee and these people claimed I was there. I can therefore confirm that I did indeed accept Mr. Lafleur's invitation and therefore I was at this private dinner.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: In what capacity? On your own behalf or in your capacity as chairman—?
Hon. André Ouellet: On my own behalf.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Carle, Mr. LeFrançois, Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Lapierre, as well as many other people were present. Did the issue of sponsorships ever come up?
Hon. André Ouellet: Sponsorships were never discussed.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Not even indirectly?
Hon. André Ouellet: Not even indirectly.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: If I understood correctly, it seems I am hearing stereo sound.
Mr. Ouellet, I would like to now refer to a document which I will then table. It is a memo Mr. Chuck Guité sent to Lafleur Communication. The memo was about the sponsorship of Canada Post's stamp design competition.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I imagine that you were involved. The memo reads as follows:
| Chuck, |
| Following our discussions, I would appreciate it if you would correct the contract PWGSC/LCM, re: Canada Post sponsorship |
| $300,000 in sponsorship funds should be withdrawn (Média Vision) for production at Lafleur Communication Marketing. |
| That way, Lafleur Communication Marketing will generate the entire budget ($600,000); this way, the $300,000, which would otherwise have gone to Canada Post, will not go into the corporation's consolidated fund. |
What explains this tactic? What did the crown corporation have to gain from it?
¸ (1415)
Hon. André Ouellet: I think you should direct that question to either Mr. Guité or Mr. Lafleur. I am not abreast of—
Mr. Odina Desrochers: But the consolidated funds—
Hon. André Ouellet: I am not aware of this exchange of correspondence between Mr. Guité and Mr. Lafleur.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You talked about the stamp contract. Did you receive a copy of the mandate given to Lafleur Communication at the time?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, of course, and I can repeat what I said if you wish: The role of Lafleur Communication was to produce all the bilingual production material to be distributed in schools and post offices.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: There was no placement in the media?
Hon. André Ouellet: There was no placement in the media within the framework of the “Stamp in the Future“ program. It was a program calling on young people to draw pictures of stamps.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: At the time, you didn't know that the money came from the Sponsorship Program?
Hon. André Ouellet: When we originally heard about the Millennium Program, we at Canada Post thought, in good faith, that the money would be coming from the Millennium Program because, at the time, the Government of Canada was encouraging people to carry out various projects in honour of the millennium.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who was the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation at that time?
Hon. André Ouellet: It was Mr. Gagliano.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did Mr. Gagliano call you at the time to say that it might not be a bad idea to use sponsorship program funds?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. Mr. Gagliano was present when the project was announced and he congratulated Canada Post for having launched this initiative which, as he said at the time, corresponded exactly to the government's objective , which was to celebrate the millennium. I have it here in English, I will read it to you and we will provide you with the translation.
[English]
Mr. Gagliano said in a speech about the “Stampin' the Future” contest, “this contest fits well with 'Sharing the Memory, Shaping the Dream', our government's overall initiative to mark the new millennium. 'Stampin' the Future' reflects our government's belief that young people must be central to Canada's celebration of the millennium.”
[Translation]
For us, it was a project targeted at young people to get them to draw pictures of stamps. We were hoping that the young people would develop an interest in stamps and one day become collectors, and that they would begin to—
Mr. Odina Desrochers: And, that if they lived in Quebec, they would become good Canadians, as well, I imagine.
Hon. André Ouellet: Sir, you might not want to hear this, but this was a national contest targeting young people in every province and territory.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to come back to the $1.6 million you spent on the Maurice Richard series. Who made the marketing decisions at Canada Post? How did the system work? Who had signing authority? After all, $1.6 million is a sizeable sum of money.
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course. The initial $1.3 million awarded was spent on producing the French version of the film. A total of $300,000 was used to produce the second version.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who signed off on these amounts? I know the story, but who authorize these expenditures? Who decided to spend $1.6 million on the Maurice Richard series?
Hon. André Ouellet: The expenditure was probably authorized by Mr. Clermont, the President of Canada Post at the time.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Since you were Chairman of the Board at the time, did you have a say in the matter?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. Although I was the Chairman, I did not have spending authority.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who is higher up in the corporation's hierarchy? The Chairman of the Board or the CEO?
Hon. André Ouellet: The CEO of Canada Post, the rank I currently hold, is the person who manages and oversees the corporation. The CEO has the authority to sign contracts and to manage the company on a day-to-day basis.
The Chairman of the Board chairs board meetings and represents the interests of shareholders.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Given the fact that this was a Canada-wide project, did you not think of consulting the board before making a recommendation to the then CEO?
Hon. André Ouellet: I did not make any recommendations. At the time, our advertising and marketing people made the decision because they thought it was an extremely valuable project. It was authorized by the CEO. A significant amount of money was involved, but he had the authority to manage it. The board is not consulted on an ongoing basis with regard to every contract signed by the management of Canada Post.
¸ (1420)
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Desrochers.
Mrs. Jennings, you have eight minutes.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ouellet, thank you for being here and for your opening statement.
I personally have a problem with regard to the way “Stamp in the Future“ was funded. You said that it fell within the framework of the Government of Canada's Millennium Partnership Program, but if memory serves me well, federal crown corporations did not normally receive funding from that program. Rather, outside companies or organizations made a submission which could be addressed to, for instance, Canada Post asking it to sponsor a millennium event. So, when Lafleur Communication told you it thought it had found a partner, namely the Millennium Partnership Program, were you not aware that, under normal circumstances, the federal government did not provide funding to crown corporations for millennium events? Correct me if I'm mistaken with regard to the eligibility criteria, but it seems to me... I have seen submissions from, for example, churches in Montreal or organizations planning an event and, as far as I can recall, at most one-third of the funding was granted by the federal government under this program, irrespective of where the money came from, from within government.
Hon. André Ouellet: I believe you're right. Canada Post personnel responsible for the stamp program are not intimately aware of all the details and ramifications of the Canadian government. They were told that they could obtain money to finance the millennium project, they believed this information and, acting in good faith, they accepted the money. We realized later on that the money did not come from the Millennium Fund, but rather from the Sponsorship Program, and we realized that the government, before giving us the funding, had already paid Lafleur Communication. But our people at Canada Post were not in a position to say that things were not supposed to be done that way. They accepted the decisions made on good faith.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine. Thank you.
I would like to talk about something else. In answer to a question Mrs. Ablonczy asked you with regard to the Stamp in the Future international stamp design contest, and with regard to the fact that the Auditor General, in her report, questioned the fact that there was no business plan to be found in any documents, you replied that the committee responsible for regular stamps and commemorative stamps was not a business entity, and that the procedures and criteria established for a business plan did not apply in this case.
Can you explain the procedure that was followed? Was the approach the same as the one taken in other countries, for instance, the United States or England, with regard to this type of stamp?
Hon. André Ouellet: I really appreciate the question, Ms. Jennings, because it gives me the opportunity to point out that the Stamp Advisory Committee, which receives about 600 suggestions from Canadians, Members of Parliament, the government, the opposition and from various organizations, must develop an annual program involving about 20 projects at most. It is therefore extremely difficult to choose from the many historical events, the centenary of a town or a capital, or of a province, or the centenary of the death of a famous artist. The program must therefore be a balanced one which takes the Canadian reality into account.
It is obvious, as I was saying to Ms. Jennings, that the choice of a particular design for a stamp is not based on a business plan. The choice is based on needs, on suggestions made by Canadians, and this approach is used for the Canadian stamp program, which must reflect Canadian history and culture and the Canadian reality.
So when the stamp committee decided to accept the USPS's proposal to print four stamps with children's designs, we did not ask ourselves whether this would be a lucrative venture for us. That wasn't the point and that wasn't the committee's objective.
Of course, we produce a certain number of stamps to attract buyers and to generate additional profits. For instance, with that aim in mind, each year we print stamps on hockey stars, because the people who buy them are collectors of sports stamps.
When you buy a stamp, stick it on an envelope and mail the envelope, that does not generate a profit for Canada Post. However, if you buy a stamp and keep it, it does generate a profit which is directly reflected in our bottom line. So, the stamp program sometimes chooses to design stamps with a view to generating profits based on action and business plans, but in other cases, in the majority of cases, there is no business plan.
I find it unfortunate that the Auditor General took us to task for not having had a business plan in the case of those four stamps.
¸ (1425)
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Perfect.
Now, I would ask you to be very brief, because I only have one minute remaining.
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm sorry.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: First, did Canada Post explain to the Auditor General, or to her staff, that the decision to design that type of stamp, as opposed to a profit-generating stamp, is not made the same way?
Second, if memory serves me well, you mentioned other partners, such as IBM, McGraw-Hill and Québécor, when you spoke about the stamp program and indicated that you had received contributions in kind from them. Was the other million dollars entirely dedicated to in kind contributions? In fact, you said that the total cost was over $1 million. We already know that you received $521,000 and change from the sponsorship program, so where did the rest...?
Hon. André Ouellet: The balance was paid by Canada Post. We presented the young winners with computers and encyclopedias, which represented the in kind contributions...
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Can you tell us what the value of the in kind contributions was?
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely, we would be happy to provide you with that information.
Now, to reply to the first part of your question dealing with...
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I was in such a hurry to squeeze in the second question in the minute I had left that...
Hon. André Ouellet: It will come back to me and I will answer your question later on.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: All right, thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I think, Mr. Ouellet, you made reference to tabling some lists. We can have the clerk contact Canada Post for that.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, sure.
The Chair: Ms. Ablonczy, we're now into the third round, so we're into four-minute interventions.
We'll have Mrs. Ablonczy for four minutes, followed by Mr. Toews.
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. But if you don't mind, I would like to come back to Ms. Jennings' question.
She wanted to know whether we gave the Auditor General that information. Yes, we gave the Auditor General's staff all of the information and we do not understand why did they did not take it into account, or why they did not understand that, for us, the stamp program, as is the case for postal administrations in the United States, France and in other countries, was not just a business undertaking. Each postal corporation must take various factors into account. We got the impression that the auditors from the Auditor General's office wanted so much to link us to the Sponsorship Program that they did not want to believe that our information was legitimate.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ouellet.
Mrs. Ablonczy, please, for four minutes.
¸ (1430)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, the Auditor General found that $600,000 had been paid to Lafleur Communications and its subsidiary Media/IDA Vision for this stamp competition. Lafleur and its subsidiary deducted about 80 grand from the $600,000 and passed the other $520-odd thousand on to Canada Post. Canada Post then turned right around and gave it back to Lafleur, plus another $60,000 to Michèle Tremblay's company. When Lafleur got the money back, it took almost another 20% off for “administrative fees” and then did we're not quite sure what with it. So here we have Canada Post supposed to get $600,000; it goes through Lafleur, who takes about 80 grand; then Canada Post finally gets the money and turns right around and gives it right back to Lafleur, which takes almost another fifth off the top for “administrative fees”.
Now, Mr. Ouellet, that's a hell of a lot of money just for--I don't know--passing along a cheque and some administrative fees. Were you not concerned about that amount of money disappearing from your $600,000 sponsorship grant?
Hon. André Ouellet: If it had happened the way you're describing it, I would say yes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, that's how the Auditor General described it, not me.
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, I have to tell you, Madame, this is not a fact, and the Auditor General's report is not accurate here.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You're saying the Auditor General doesn't know what she's talking about? Is that what you're telling this committee?
Hon. André Ouellet: I am telling you the Auditor General could make mistakes, could misinterpret what took place. I'm sorry to say that in this case I've read the document and it is not the way it happened. I'm not blaming the Auditor General; I'm just saying here that the report of the Auditor General is not accurate as to the facts. You're asking me to give you the facts, and I'm here to give you the facts.
And I'll tell you where you made the mistake. You say Canada Post turned around and paid Lafleur $560,000. It's not true; we paid Lafleur for work done over a period of time. There's been documentation justifying all of their bills, and Lafleur was paid by us only after work was done for which there was proper justification.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But my point is--
Hon. André Ouellet: Second, you said that--
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I only have four minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm sorry, I'm here to give the facts, so let me give the facts, Madame.
You're saying that Lafleur, on top of the money they got from the government--with which we at Canada Post had nothing to do; this was a payment made by the government--also got commissions or fees for work done. I'm telling you this is not accurate. I know there's a paragraph in the auditor's report that says one of Lafleur's invoices paid by Canada Post shows a commission to the agency of 17.16%, which, CPC informs us, was for finding a partner for ad placement fees. We reviewed this, and in fact we didn't pay Lafleur.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, your own testimony on page 1 says “the Auditor General's staff spent four months last summer at Canada Post with the mandate to examine the activities and transactions of the corporation” during the relevant period. Are you saying the Auditor General's staff, in four months, came up with a finding that is not true? Is that what you're telling this committee?
¸ (1435)
Hon. André Ouellet: I am telling you that after four months they have comments on only two cases.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's not my question.
Hon. André Ouellet: I am telling you that if they had found more cases, they would have comments on more cases. On these two cases—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Ouellet, that's not my question.
Hon. André Ouellet: —on these two cases, I'm telling you that what is written here is not according to the facts.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, I have four minutes, and I can't get a simple question answered. Surely there has to be—
An hon. member: She's had six minutes.
The Chair: She hasn't had six; she's had less than five minutes. Because of the very long answer by Mr. Ouellet in the middle, she started her question and I allowed her to continue.
Since she is insisting on an answer, Mr. Ouellet, to a fairly direct question, I think I'll ask Ms. Ablonczy to put that same question again, and we'll expect an answer.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Is Mr. Ouellet telling this committee that the Auditor General, after four months of investigation with her staff at Canada Post, has a report that has incorrect information, that she didn't know what she was talking about, that she's not giving the facts? Is that what he's saying?
Hon. André Ouellet: I am not saying she does not know what she's talking about. I am saying some of her conclusions are incorrect.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What evidence do you have of that, Mr. Ouellet?
The Chair: We're not going to go there. We're going to just leave it at that. Mr. Ouellet has had the chance—
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, how can you get to the bottom of this series of events, which is very serious in the minds of Canadians, when you can't pursue a line of questioning and find out? This witness has made a very serious allegation, and yet all of a sudden, that's it; I can't find out any more.
The Chair: Just one moment, Mr. Ouellet. I will allow you to speak in a minute.
Mrs. Ablonczy, I appreciate your point of view. If I allow everybody to take the time they would like to have, we'd have four or five interventions, and that would be the meeting over. I appreciate your point of view, that you can't get the answers. Mr. Ouellet has been asked on more than one occasion by you to make a direct response to your question. He has not given you the answer you consider satisfactory. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we will leave it there. It may be picked up by others.
Mr. Ouellet, you wanted to say something.
Hon. André Ouellet: I want to say this might not satisfy Madame, but I am here answering the facts, and what I'm saying is truth. I remind you that because of your colleagues, I was sworn in, and I'm here to say the truth, only the truth, and that's what I'm doing. I think it is important that you listen to me. Why are you inviting me if I'm not entitled to speak on these things?
With due respect, this committee has a mandate to find out about the sponsorship program. There is an allegation that there is $100 million spent somewhere—disappeared. Well, here what we're talking about is half a million dollars, about which I'm telling you the money we received was well spent. Please put this in the proper context. I know this committee wants to get to the bottom of $100 million that so-called “disappeared”. Well, find it. But I'm telling you that out of this $100 million, this teeny little half a million dollars that was given to Canada Post, of which I'm telling you we spent all of that money very well, has all been accounted, and no money was spent irregularly.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: On a point of order, Mrs. Ablonczy.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: For this teeny-weeny $500,000—which some Canadians worked very hard to provide, I might add—the witness has told this committee there's an inaccuracy in the Auditor General's report. I believe this committee is entitled to see the documents on which the witness bases that allegation, because this is a very serious matter.
My point of order is that this committee ask the witness to table the documents that apparently were not provided to the Auditor General in her four-month inquiry at Canada Post and that would show some inaccuracies, because this is what we're supposed to be investigating.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.
Mr. Ouellet, you have made the accusation that the Auditor General's facts are not correct. I do expect that you will provide some substantiation for that.
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely. It was given to the Auditor General's people. It was mis-evaluated, and I'm telling you that their conclusions here do not reflect the reality. We will supply you with the documentation.
¸ (1440)
The Chair: Do you have these documents, or do we have to go to Canada Post for them?
Hon. André Ouellet: You have to go to Canada Post.
The Chair: Okay, we will go to Canada Post for them. When we get them we will ask the clerks to give a copy to you so you can affirm that they are the actual documents you are speaking about.
I forgot to mention that I have circulated, in both officials languages, the e-mail that Mr. MacKay tabled this morning. It is now available, tabled, and public.
Point of order.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Could I have clarification on that, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Mr. Thibault.
Hon. Robert Thibault: I wonder how it works in the end. I know if a witness wants to come forward and wants to benefit from witness protection, we have set up a system where they can approach the committee in a way that won't become public.
I have a bit of a problem with somebody sending an anonymous e-mail and it automatically becoming part of the public record, without any verification of fact. In this case it doesn't seem to be all that serious, but it could be.
The Chair: I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Thibault. A member was quoting from it this morning before it was public. We weren't knowledgeable of what the contents of the e-mail were. In fact, I think Mr. Desrochers was also talking about quoting from a document. I meant to ask him if he was going to table that as well, because when people actually quote from documents we like them to be tabled.
I don't think we're passing any opinion on the document. It speaks for itself. It's just there, in the same way as you can quote in the House of Commons from any document you like, and there it is. So this is the same. The source of the document stands by itself.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: On the same point of order, I do share some of the concern Mr. Thibault has raised. I would suggest that the witness be given a copy of these allegations, if they're part of the public record, so he has an opportunity to refute or agree with this. In fairness, the witness should at minimum be allowed to do that. Whether the witness wants to do that at a subsequent appearance or in written form, I don't have any preference.
The Chair: Okay. I did mention that the final paragraph dealing with a particular transaction was really not part of this investigation, so if the witness prefers not to answer questions on that we will accept that statement.
Do you have one final point, Mr. Thibault?
Hon. Robert Thibault: I have just one quick point that goes back to what you raised. There are a lot of elements, even in this e-mail, that speak to the writer's opinion of the witness, rather than the facts relating to this case. I think it is incumbent on the chair to keep it to the facts.
The Chair: That's correct. Mr. Ouellet was asked to appear here today regarding chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report. If anything is not germane to that, he can defer the questions and the chair will support him on that issue.
Mr. Ouellet.
Hon. André Ouellet: I've already responded.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ouellet, I'd just like to follow up on the theme of what this committee is charged with attempting to find out. I think there's a difference--and I think you would agree--where work is done and there are invoices that establish and validate that the work was done.... I think there have been other instances where, because of the opaque nature, or however one wants to describe it, work appears to have been billed for which there was no value added. The challenge for this committee is to try to separate the two.
I think that's what Ms. Ablonczy is attempting to get a handle on, with respect to the point raised by the Auditor General. I'm going to just ask you the question this way, in that same case, with respect to the $600,000 provided to Lafleur and Media.
Madam Louise Bertrand, Assistant Auditor General, said: “If the CCSB had given the funds directly to Canada Post, the commissions of $78,261 would not have been paid to the agencies.” Do you agree with that statement?
¸ (1445)
Hon. André Ouellet: I agree, of course.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Then to go on, again Madame Louise Bertrand says, “We are concerned by the commissions paid to transfer money that was going to the Lafleur agency in any case.” Would you also agree, then, that there was not value for that money?
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, this is not the responsibility of Canada Post. This is the responsibility of a department of the Government of Canada that does business that way. I think you cannot blame the recipient of the money; you have to blame the one who gives the money in that way.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Might I then go on with that answer through you, Mr. Chairman? The Auditor General in this case points out that Canada Post did not follow its own sponsorship policy. Are you telling me, then, that even in respect of the sponsorship program and those funds you have suggested came through the Maurice “Rocket” Richard program, you didn't follow due diligence with respect to tracing where unnecessary commissions might go?
Hon. André Ouellet: We explained to the people working for the Auditor General that this was not a sponsorship program; this was a stamp program. We have every year a series of stamp issues, and this was part of our stamp program. It was not a sponsorship program in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. In your mind, that was the difference.
I have one question. I want to test your memory, Mr. Ouellet, on a more general basis—which probably you'll find somewhat relieving. I would if I were in the same circumstances.
Were you aware of the establishment of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office, which was in existence prior to, during, and after the referendum, and did you have any relationship with it?
Hon. André Ouellet: I know I don't have to answer the question if it has to do with ministerial responsibility, but irrespective of my ministerial responsibility, it was well known and was in the public domain that there was such a secretariat in operation.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see, and that was under the minister.... I think it was Stéphane Dion at that time.
Hon. André Ouellet: No, Mr. Dion came in after the referendum.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Ah, okay.
In relation to interprovincial policy, would that entity have some direction over affairs in Quebec concerning the separatist movement? Would it make policy decisions?
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, the purpose of this secretariat was to prepare the argument in favour of Quebeckers staying in Canada. There were a lot of studies, and a lot of documentation was prepared and released, issued to promote the federalist cause—as the Quebec government was having studies and research done to convince Quebeckers to separate.
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.
Hon. André Ouellet: The two governments were in action, one in Quebec, one in Ottawa.
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
Mr. Lastewka, please.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: I want to go back to the mandate of the committee to try to find out what happened and why and how to prevent it in the future.
When you became president of Canada Post, did you not get briefings on what was happening in Canada Post? Understanding that you were the chair up until that time, did you not get briefings on the details of what was happening in Canada Post?
Hon. André Ouellet: From whom?
Hon. Walt Lastewka: From the department, from Canada Post.
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course I had officials who briefed me on a number of subjects dealing with the operation of the company, but they were internal people at Canada Post.
¸ (1450)
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Did they brief you on the programs that were being done by the sponsorship program? Did they brief you on the programs?
Hon. André Ouellet: As I told you at the beginning, I became the CEO in late 1999.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: But payments and arrangements were being made by various people, including Lafleur, during 1999. I take it you became president in January. There were dealings during the year, were there not?
Hon. André Ouellet: You said payments were made. What kinds of payments?
Hon. Walt Lastewka: It's my understanding that the payments to Lafleur for work done were made in March 1999.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Payments to L'Information essentielle were made in February. Would you have received briefings on those?
Hon. André Ouellet: These were done as part of the normal operations of the company. We are a $6 billion company. In the course of a month, a lot of payments are made. I want to reiterate to you that all of the money that was paid was for work done. As far as Canada Post is concerned, we never gave money to anybody for work that was not done and properly justified.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: You mentioned to Ms. Ablonczy that what has been reported is not your interpretation and that you did provide that information to the Auditor General.
Mr. Chairman, I understand you said we will fetch that.
The Chair: Yes, we will get that resolved.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: On page 16 of the report it clearly shows that Lafleur was paid $62,000 and $521,000 was given to Canada Post. Did you have discussions with anybody in Public Works during that time?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Tonks, I noticed you were cut off. Did you want one more minute?
Mr. Alan Tonks: No.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Did you have any discussions with Mr. Gagliano during this time?
Hon. André Ouellet: I had a number of discussions with Mr. Gagliano when he was the minister responsible for Canada Post, which dealt with Canada Post projects, programs, and documents that had to be sent to cabinet and the Treasury Board.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Did you have any discussions on the sponsorship program?
Hon. André Ouellet: Never.
Hon. Walt Lastewka: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.
Mr. MacKay, for four minutes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ouellet, I want to go back to your time as a cabinet minister under Prime Minister Chrétien. Were you part of a special cabinet committee on national unity?
Hon. André Ouellet: I listened to the discussions that took place here last week. It is clear that this committee has a mandate to review whatever took place after 1996. You wrote, I understand, to Mr. Himelfarb in regard to obtaining the authority to go beyond 1996. I don't think you have received that approval. I don't think I am required to answer any question asked of me as a minister of the crown.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're declining to answer the question, in other words. You will not admit that you were part of that special cabinet committee on national unity.
Hon. André Ouellet: It's not a question of admitting, sir. You don't have a mandate to ask that question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: We have a mandate to get to the bottom of what happened, Mr. Ouellet.
Hon. André Ouellet: You have a mandate to get to the bottom of what took place after 1996.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That's exactly what we're here to do.
Hon. André Ouellet: Your attitude is incorrect.
¸ (1455)
The Chair: Order, please. Mr. MacKay, you cannot use the words that you said. Mr. Ouellet said he would not answer because of cabinet confidence. Therefore, the matter rests there.
Mr. Vic Toews: I have a point of order. How can it be a cabinet confidence that you were in a cabinet meeting? Certainly, someone is entitled to ask whether someone was a member of a cabinet committee. What's the secret here?
The Chair: Mr. Ouellet, do you still want to refrain from answering the question?
Hon. André Ouellet: I take issue with this gentleman saying, “What about that?” You don't have this mandate. Get the mandate; then you can ask all the questions and we'll answer your questions.
I mean, this is a fishing expedition on your part that is reprehensible and totally unacceptable. Ask all the questions you want in regard to the period from 1996 until today.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think that's hogwash. I would like you, Mr. Chairperson, to remind the witness that our mandate as a committee is to investigate the findings of the Auditor General in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of her report dealing with the sponsorship program, advertising activities, and management of public opinion research.
Let me also say that the findings of the Auditor General refer to activities that began as early as 1993. I would suggest that the questions we're asking in terms of pre-sponsorship program activities and the questions my colleague from the Conservative Party just asked are all in order in terms of the findings of the Auditor General's report.
The Chair: As I've said before, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, when you're investigating why the rules are broken, you can't break the rules to investigate why the rules are broken.
We do have an order in council allowing members of cabinet from July 1996 forward, I believe it is, to be relieved of their obligations under the oath of office they took. Mr. Ouellet was in cabinet prior to that date. We do not have the authority, an order in council, to lift that oath of secrecy from the minister; therefore, he is within his rights to refrain from answering these questions.
We have sought to get that authority through an order in council. When we receive it, we will have the capacity to ask these questions about his participation in cabinet regarding chapters 3, 4, and 5.
Mr. Walsh and Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I think there's a point arising from the witness's last remarks that bears clarification. The questions asked, in my view, are clearly within the mandate of this committee. The issue is whether the witness is bound to answer the questions by virtue of the constraints upon him arising from his oath as a member of cabinet. The witness ought not to confuse any constraints on him by virtue of his oath with the mandate of this committee; the two are not the same thing.
The Chair: We're going to go to Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay: My question was clearly not about what was discussed at any cabinet meetings. I was not asking Mr. Ouellet to breach his oath of office. I was simply asking a question that, as the law clerk has pointed out, is in the context of questions we have put forward as a committee. It was to find out, very simply, whether Mr. Ouellet was part of that cabinet committee. It was not about what was said, nor what was discussed, nor what was put forward as a mandate by this committee, but was simply to determine whether he was a part of that cabinet committee.
He has chosen, clearly, not to answer that question, which is fine. It's plausible deniability.
The Chair: He has chosen not to answer that question, and it's not for me or this committee to determine what, in his mind, falls within the realm of his interpretation of cabinet confidence. If he invokes cabinet confidence for that period, then we must respect that. We have little choice, to my mind.
We'll have Ms. Wasylycia-Leis for a final point, and then we're moving on.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a final point of order. Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I think we will respect that decision, but following Mr. Walsh's comments, I think you as chair ought to reprimand the witness for trying to dictate what questions we should be asking. It's his right to decide what to answer, but he has no right to tell us what questions we should be asking.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
The chair is not going to reprimand the witness if he invokes the oath of office he took as a member of the cabinet of this country.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: No, no. Thank you very much; that's enough.
He's quite capable, I'm sure, of determining what a cabinet confidence is or is not. If he decides to invoke it, then that is his privilege, and he has done so. Therefore, we move on, and I will not reprimand him on that basis.
¹ (1500)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chairperson, my point was not about whether or not he is respecting the oath. My point is that on numerous occasions throughout this hearing, when we have asked questions, the witness has actually suggested to us what questions we should be asking or not asking. I find that reprehensible.
The Chair: You may find that reprehensible.
The law clerk has told us on many occasions that witnesses have an obligation to lay before this committee everything they know regarding the sponsorship program before the first question is asked; that is their obligation. It's their obligation to answer the questions we put to them faithfully and truthfully.
But there are some other obligations they have. One for this particular witness is an oath of secrecy, taken while he was in cabinet, that has not been lifted. If he decides he's going to invoke that, then we will respect that.
We're moving on. Mr. MacKay, we're back to you.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Ouellet, I want to go to the crux of the whole issue here, and that is the merit in which these contracts were awarded to advertising firms. Who made the decision to give the contract for the Maurice Richard film to L'Information essentielle?
In that instance, as well as the awarding of the contract to Lafleur Communications, as well as the decision to award to Tremblay Guittet, who made those decisions to award the work that was being done on behalf of Canada Post to those firms? Was it you? Was it the board of directors? Did anyone contact you from government, or the Department of Public Works, or any other office or any minister past or present to award that work to those firms specifically?
Hon. André Ouellet: The decision in regard to L'Information essentielle was made by the head of the communications division, our vice-president, communications.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Which was who?
Hon. André Ouellet: The letter was sent to Monsieur Alain Guilbert. The person who authorized the payment was the then CEO, Monsieur Georges Clermont.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you had no input whatsoever into that decision?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. I couldn't have input because I was the chairman of the board. I had no signing authority and no authority to spend money.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Canada Post's sponsorship policy requires that there be documentation, objectives for budget.... You had a sponsorship obligation, did you not, under Canada Post guidelines?
Hon. André Ouellet: Well, this is again a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and ourselves. We say it was not a sponsorship initiative. This was a commercial decision. It fit with our marketing plan. It was approved by our vice-president, sales and marketing, confirmed by our vice-president, communications, and approved by our president.
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you would maintain that there was no sponsorship money that went through Canada Post at all, none whatsoever?
Hon. André Ouellet: None whatsoever, and I want to reiterate this in regard to this film. The money that was spent was not money we received from somebody else; it was exclusively, totally, Canada Post money and went directly to the producer.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you provide documents that will outline what Canada Post's budget was for advertising?
The Chair: Mr. MacKay, the witness is here as an individual. If you want that information, we have to ask Canada Post.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.
Are you are still being paid, Mr. Ouellet, during your period of suspension?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: And your suspension is indefinite? You have no idea when that decision will be made?
Hon. André Ouellet: I hope I will be reintegrated very early.
The Chair: Your time is up. Thank you, Mr. MacKay.
[Translation]
Mr. Thibault, please.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Ouellet. Regarding the stamp design competition, you indicated that the Auditor General's report could either contain errors, or could be interpreted differently by yourself or by the Auditor General and her staff.
When the draft of the audit was completed, presumably by the AG's Office, did Canada Post not have the opportunity to make any comments or provide the auditors with clarifications, in order to ensure that Canada Post's point of view came across clearly?
¹ (1505)
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, and we did do so. We provided documents to that effect, but our point of view was not taken into account.
Hon. Robert Thibault: In the course of those exchanges, did the Office of the Auditor General explain why it did not agree with your arguments?
Hon. André Ouellet: We got the impression that after having spent four months with Canada Post, closing the books without finding any wrongdoing was a source of considerable embarrassment to them. So they decided to identify some shortcomings. However, we take issue with some of their allegations.
Hon. Robert Thibault: In the case of the Maurice Richard series and Information essentielle, which is a private sector business—Robert Guy Scully and Company—Canada Post made a direct investment in this venture.
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely.
Hon. Robert Thibault: This was also noted in the Auditor General's report. Why should this project be included in the report, since it represents a simple investment on the part of Canada Post in a private company and in a private production and has nothing to do with sponsorships?
Hon. André Ouellet: I would refer you to this page, which contains a graph regarding the Maurice Richard series.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Yes, it's on page 12 of chapter 3.
Hon. André Ouellet: That's right. If you look at the document, you will see a list of every transaction by the Government of Canada, through several companies, to pay Information essentielle. If you look at the bottom, it says that Canada Post made a direct payment to Information essentielle.
That's why I said earlier, that there was an impression that we were guilty by association. We should not have been included in this chapter.
Hon. Robert Thibault: However, you do admit that, with regard to Lafleur, Media/IDA Vision, you were given money and that you then retained...
Hon. André Ouellet: No, that has nothing to do with the Maurice Richard series.
Hon. Robert Thibault: No, no.
Hon. André Ouellet: That had to do with the stamp program.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Fine, but you have to admit that it's a strange transaction. You received money from a government program, and the same companies were hired to do the job.
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Thibault, you can blame the Department of Public Works for acting in this way and you are quite right in doing so. You can ask all the questions you want of these people to find out why they did this. You would be justified in so doing. But don't blame Canada Post. It received a certain amount of money in good faith to carry out a program for young people and all the money spent on this was administered with very careful attention to detail.
Hon. Robert Thibault: I see.
I have one last question for you, Mr. Ouellet. Canada Post is a large Crown corporation that is well managed, according to you, with 60,000 employees and a good management team. It strikes me as curious that Canada Post was able to anticipate funding of $521,000 from the Millennium Program, without any documentation showing that they would be able to go ahead with this project with the appropriate funding.
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Thibault, with all due respect, there is documentation. We did provide documentation to the people from the Auditor General's Office. We ourselves audited each one of the operations. All the accounts submitted to us for payment were audited. The program lasted almost two and a half years and everything was done in compliance with standards and within the budget established for this project.
So there is a good deal of documentation. As far as we are concerned, we are of the view that our management was absolutely top-notch. The director of the Advisory Committee on Stamps and the members of the committee who worked on this project deserve congratulations, they did an extraordinary job. The sum of $500,00 was involved, but it did create tremendous goodwill among thousands of children and their families and that is also worth a lot of money.
¹ (1510)
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Mr. Thibault.
Mr. Jordan.
Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask my question, I want to make one point about the e-mail we've circulated here. I guess I share my two colleagues' concern about the process that puts this now in the public domain.
Mr. Chairman, it's my time.
The Chair: I'll stop the clock. I had some discussions with the law clerk. We are concerned about the issue as well, and what we're thinking about is that these documents from whistle-blowers with allegations that are unsubstantiated will first go to the witness investigation committee for discussion and then come to the full committee. So there will be no more of these kinds of documents coming forward.
Hon. Joe Jordan: In Mr. MacKay's defence, I'll just say that clearly, with the issue of prior contact and discussion with Canada Post employees, there was a legitimate hook into it, the way the committee started today, but we didn't anticipate these kinds of documents when we put our processes in. So I think your course of action is.... There are six people mentioned in there who are now in the public domain as being connected here.
Mr. Ouellet, I want to ask a few questions. In your opening statement, on page 5, you say:
| In the course of finding partners for 'Stampin' the Future', Lafleur Communications, our agency of record for stamp launches, suggested that this project would be an ideal candidate for funding from the Government of Canada's millennium partnership program. We asked Lafleur Communications to pursue this opportunity, and were gratified when we learned that the project had been accepted. |
Who accepted the project, and what was the program they were funding it under?
Hon. André Ouellet: As you realize, Lafleur was our agency of record for stamp launches and therefore was regularly meeting the staff of the stamp program to discuss eventual stamp launches and eventual projects. When our people started to discuss Stampin' The Future and said we had received a proposal from USPS to make this big competition for the millennium, Lafleur suggested to our officials--and this is what I'm saying--that this would fit very well with the Government of Canada's millennium celebration activities.
Hon. Joe Jordan: But clearly the money didn't come from the millennium partnership program. The money came from CCSB. When did you first become aware that this wasn't an approved project under the millennium partnership program and was actually money from the sponsorship file?
Hon. André Ouellet: About a year later.
Hon. Joe Jordan: Because I think the distinction the Auditor General is making...and I'll just read the passage on page 9 of the document. It says:
| The Treasury Board's Policy on Transfer Payments stipulates that “where a department is considering a grant, contribution, or other transfer payment to a Crown corporation...there must be prior consultation with the Treasury Board Secretariat...” |
Are you aware of whether that prior consultation took place between CCSB and Treasury Board?
Hon. André Ouellet: No.
And in response to the Auditor General's report, as president and CEO I personally spoke to the board of directors of Canada Post and indicated that it would be proper for us to offer to reimburse the government. I asked the board of directors to authorize Canada Post to reimburse the money if we were asked to reimburse, and the board of directors authorized us to do so.
Hon. Joe Jordan: But there'd be a certain robbing Peter to pay Paul, because if you didn't reimburse that money it might be returned to general revenue at the end of the year anyway.
Hon. André Ouellet: Put this in the proper context. This is $500,000. That very year we paid more than $12 million in dividends. In the last five years we have paid more than $145 million in dividends to the government.
Hon. Joe Jordan: My final question, then, deals with the Maurice Richard series. Clearly the flow of money from Canada Post wasn't anywhere near as complicated and doesn't raise the same questions as the flow of money through the advertising firms, but at the end of the day Canada Post paid about $1.6 million, and VIA Rail paid $160,000, albeit after the fact involuntarily.
Did Canada Post get ten times the value that VIA got, because that's what you paid?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
We paid $1.3 million for the French film. We paid $300,000 for the English version. I indicated that already the French version has attracted more than two million viewers. We had, and I explained this in my text, a lot of advertising and a lot of exposure with this program, not only when it was launched, not only when it was on Radio Canada, but also when it was on TVA, the private network in Quebec. And our rights are forever. Every time this film is run, we will get exposure.
So I think we have already cashed in more than we invested.
¹ (1515)
The Chair: We're back to the beginning again, so the next round will be eight minutes, and by the time we get through that, I think we'll be getting close to the end.
Mr. Toews, eight minutes, please.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.
In your testimony this morning you indicated that not only were you the chairman of the board of Canada Post, but you had a special relationship to the entire stamp program, the stamp advisory committee, and you had a direct role in making decisions with respect to the approval of projects related to stamps.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, it is customary that the permanent chairman of the board of Canada Post automatically becomes the chairman of the stamp advisory committee.
Mr. Vic Toews: So with respect to the Maurice Richard series, you were much more than simply the chairman of the board. You were in fact a hands-on participant in the decision-making related to the Maurice Richard series.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Vic Toews: You've indicated--and the Auditor General disagrees with you--that there was no sponsorship money involved here. You indicated that in testimony here, yet the Auditor General says Canada Post was identified as a sponsor. The invoices indicated that it was sponsoring the production of the Maurice Richard series, and basically the Auditor General came to the conclusion that Canada Post should have followed the sponsorship policy.
In reading the report of the Auditor General, what becomes of some concern to me--and I would like your comments on the issue--is the lack of documentation. Perhaps that's really what the problem is.
We heard from Mr. LeFrançois of VIA Rail that a verbal contract is as good as a written contract. I don't have a dispute with that. The problem is to try to identify the contract and what was actually contracted for, and in this respect, the Auditor General in her report, chapter 3, at page 11, says:
| We are concerned about a lack of documentation to support payments made by Canada Post for the Maurice Richard series. |
There was a payment of $1.625 million with no signed contract. There was no signed proposal. There was no written business case to support the decision. So I don't know whether I agree with you or disagree with you about whether this was sponsorship money, but the issue is one of process, and I think that's what the Auditor General is talking about. She's concerned that money was spent without a proper system of written documentation being in place.
Would you not agree that at least some of the confusion here originates out of the lack of a proper written trail?
Hon. André Ouellet: I certainly regret that the Auditor General's people who spoke with our own Canada Post employees didn't understand the difference between a sponsorship and a marketing venture.
Clearly the people at the Auditor General's office were zeroing in on sponsorships while what we were talking about here was a marketing decision to buy advertising and to buy major exposure for Canada Post in the film.
Mr. Vic Toews: Let's just take that point, Mr. Ouellet--
Hon. André Ouellet: There's a big difference between....
[Translation]
When we talk about sponsorship, Canada Post...
¹ (1520)
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews: All right, Mr. Ouellet, before we go there--
The Chair: Mr. Toews has the floor.
Mr. Vic Toews: Before we go there, I appreciate that you have some more explanation, but I want to get to this point about the written documentation. You're saying--
Hon. André Ouellet: All right, let's talk about the written documentation. You cut me off while I was answering the question.
Mr. Vic Toews: No, I don't think so, Mr. Ouellet.
Wait. Let me just clarify--
The Chair: Mr. Toews, please.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Ouellet, you said it was unfortunate that the Auditor General's staff didn't understand the distinction between a sponsorship program and a marketing program. Here's the Auditor General following proper government rules, Treasury Board rules, all kinds of rules, and the Auditor General and her staff were unable to make this distinction. She spent four months there.
I'm having a problem making that distinction. I'm trying to hear what you're saying about it--and there is a distinction--but it gets down to the issue of no proper documentation. That's really the root of this problem.
You say there was value for money. There may have been value for money, but nobody knows, Mr. Ouellet, because there's no proper paper trail. Couldn't you at least indicate that if the Auditor General is having that problem, and I as a parliamentarian and other parliamentarians are having a problem, don't you think there might be a problem with the paper trail in Canada Post? Or is everybody else wrong except Canada Post?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. I think Canada Post's people did their job well. Unfortunately, the information we supplied and the information we gave to the Auditor General's people was not accepted. Now, it's a question of interpretation. In their view it's sponsorship; in our view it's a marketing exercise, a business decision.
Talking about the paper, I will table, with your permission, the letter that was sent by
[Translation]
Ms. Claudette Théorêt, CEO of L'Information essentielle inc., to Mr. Alain Guilbert, on March 20, 1998, where she clearly sets out the commitment made by L'Information essentielle with Canada Post, with respect to this particular agreement.
Here is the document. If you would like, we will table it. This document sets out the commitment made by the company to provide us with the required visibility, with all the advertising that we want for the sum of $1,300,000. This document is signed. For us at Canada Post, it amounts to a signed letter of intent that is just as valid as a contract. We told the Auditor General that we had a signed letter of intent which was the equivalent of a signed contract.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: So you have the document. That's fine. The problem I'm having is that the Auditor General says none of those documents that would satisfy her are there. You've had this report...the government has had this report, let's say, since October 2003. Didn't you say that Canada Post had been slandered in terms of the accusations the Auditor General had made? Did you volunteer that information to anyone and provide that information to anyone before you came here?
Hon. André Ouellet: We certainly spoke with the Auditor General and told her we were not in agreement with her conclusions. We had an exchange of correspondence, trying to explain it and convince them that they had it all wrong. They were talking about sponsorship. You know, you could sponsor a golf tournament for a charitable organization. We're not talking about small sponsorship activities here; we're talking about a major marketing endeavour on the part of Canada Post. We're talking about a $1.3 million--
¹ (1525)
Mr. Vic Toews: Where does that explanation show up in the government's response to the Auditor General's report? It just seems to me this is quite a substantive allegation you're making, yet nowhere, as far as I'm aware, does the government respond to that issue in that fashion. Is it a problem with the government not being diligent in pursuing your explanation?
Hon. André Ouellet: I told you at the beginning that it was my first opportunity to appear, to speak out on behalf of Canada Post, and to express publicly our point of view. I'm glad you've allowed me to repeat this, and I hope that members of this committee and members of the government will listen and understand the point of view of Canada Post in this regard.
Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, you have eight minutes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ouellet, let me begin with a comment. When I hear you speak with such disdain about the Auditor General, it seems to me that you're this close to calling for...
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: ...her suspension with pay. The Auditor General is apolitical and was appointed following a resolution of the House of Commons, which is not true in the case of your appointment at Canada Post.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, I would ask you to refrain from these kinds of remarks, please. They're completely inappropriate in this--
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the member withdraw his remarks. I have never criticized the Auditor General. I have said that the people in the Office of the Auditor General who dealt with Canada Post employees had difficulty accepting what we were telling them. I have always indicated, in all my interventions, that we had a different interpretation, a different point of view from the Auditor General's report. That does not mean I am castigating the Auditor General in any way, shape, or form.
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond--
Hon. André Ouellet: I want you to withdraw your remarks.
[Translation]
I think that they are totally out of line.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Let me return to the program “Stampin' the future”.
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Monsieur Guimond, my apologies, but I have a language problem. Did you actually withdraw there? I didn't hear you.
Can you withdraw the remarks you made earlier, please?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I'd like you to tell me what's wrong with my saying that the witness spoke with disdain about the Auditor General, someone who is apolitical, is protecting no one, is shielding no one and was appointed following a unanimous resolution of the House of Commons, whereas this witness was appointed because of his Liberal connections. There is nothing for me to withdraw.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, once more,
[Translation]
once again,
[English]
will you please withdraw the words that you put in the mouth of Mr. Ouellet, saying that he spat venom on the Auditor General?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I withdraw the words crachez votre venin. My view hasn't changed, but I will withdraw the words.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: So Mr. Ouellet, let's get back to “Stampin' the Future”. In response to one question from Mr. Proulx and another from Mr. Jordan, you mentioned that you had realized that the money didn't come from the Millennium Program, but rather from the Sponsorship Program. You didn't have a chance to finish your answer. You mentioned that this happened a later. I'd like you to give us a more specific date.
Earlier, you criticized me for not being specific enough with dates. That's why you were told that on November 28, 1999, you went to Jean Lafleur's cottage. Now i'm asking you a specific question regarding dates. When exactly did you learn that this money didn't come from the Millennium Program?
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Lafleur told us about the possibility of obtaining money for the Millennium Program earlier in 1998. The payments were made some 14 months later, in 1999.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You personally found out about it in early 1998 or in 1999?
Hon. André Ouellet: Personally, I found out about it recently, when the Auditor General's report was released.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So you were unaware that some of the funding came from the Sponsorship Program?
Hon. André Ouellet: I knew that we'd received some money, but I always thought it came from the Millennium Program.
¹ (1530)
Mr. Michel Guimond: In that case, why did you write a letter to Mrs. Huguette Tremblay, Head of Special Projects, on September 2, 1998? You begin the letter by stating:
| On behalf of the Canada Post Corporation I wish to thank you for your support as a partner in our Stampin' the Future contest. |
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, I must admit that I did see this document in the file. I believe the letter must have been signed by the arm, and not officially by me.
Mr. Michel Guimond: The arm?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes. There is—
Mr. Michel Guimond: You mean an electronic signature?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: All right. So, you're saying that you had no idea what was coming out of your office, and that many different people had signing authority?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I'm not saying that I was unaware of what was coming out of my office. Some letters are signed directly by me and some are sign automatically, depending on the type and volume of correspondence.
Mr. Michel Guimond: For an important competition like that, the electronic signature would apply?
Hon. André Ouellet: We thanked and congratulated all the participants, all the school boards, all the young people who took part. Obviously, many letters were signed electronically.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but don't trivialize this, Mr. Ouellet. We're talking about a letter to Mrs. Huguette Tremblay, who reported to Charles Guité and who was head of special projects. I'm not talking about a grade six student who sent you a nice drawing as an entry in a stamp design contest. Just a minute here, don't trivialize this.
Could such a letter have been signed electronically?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So it wasn't important.
Well Mr. Ouellet, it's common knowledge here in Ottawa as well as in Montreal that certain members of your family work at Canada Post Corporation. Since you like to play with words, let's look at the broader meaning of family. Please don't give me answers that concern only your children.
Is it true that certain members of your family work for the Canada Post Corporation?
Hon. André Ouellet: I don't see how this question relates to the Sponsorship Program.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Well, you're here, and you'll see where I am going with this. Trust me, Mr. Ouellet,and please answer the question.
In any case, it's very useful for a lawyer to ask questions to which he already knows the answers.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Guimond, we have a point of order.
Mr. Thibault.
Hon. Robert Thibault: The question might be of interest to another committee, but I believe you'll agree that the member is getting that information from the piece of e-mail we referred to earlier, and we suggested that only the pertinent parts should be referred to.
The Chair: That's right. The witness did defer answering the question. I let it pass without intervention because he said he didn't see any connection with the sponsorship program, so he did not answer the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, please.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I will explain why I asked that question. It is because the heads of Crown corporations—as we saw last week with Marc LeFrançois—are starting to think of the corporations which they are managing on the government's behalf as their very own companies. Therefore, they are allowing themselves free rein. However, nepotism is not permitted, even in a Crown corporation. In any case, I know the answer to my question, but I would like you to answer it anyway.
How many members of your family work at Canada Post?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, as Mr. Ouellet pointed out, unless you can connect this to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report, he defers answering the question because he says it's not relevant.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Ouellet, has Groupe Everest carried out any contracts for Canada Post?
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes. For a short while, Everest had a number of graphic arts contracts. But for several years now, we have being doing graphic arts work within Canada Post, and Everest no longer works for Canada Post.
Mr. Michel Guimond: How large were the contracts that were being awarded at the time?
Hon. André Ouellet: They were worth several tens of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Did you know that Alain Guilbert, the Vice-President of Communications at Groupe Everest, is a former Everest executive? Is that news to you?
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I did know that—
¹ (1535)
Mr. Michel Guimond: In any case—
Hon. André Ouellet: Slinging mud and hoping some of its sticks and associating people with all kinds of things is a tactic—
As part of his duties as Vice-President of Communications, Mr. Guilbert recommended that all graphic arts be done in-house. This means he is directly responsible for the fact that Groupe Everest no longer receives contracts from Canada Post.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I'll come back to the November 28, 1999 reception held at Jean Lafleur's chalet. Was this an impromptu gathering, or was it planned? Did you receive a formal invitation in advance?
Hon. André Ouellet: When you receive an invitation, I would assume that it's not an impromptu gathering. If he invited us to his chalet along with a group of people, I think the least he had to do was prepare something for dinner.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So when Jean Lapierre told the Journal de Montréal that this was a impromptu party planned on that very day, he was lying. Jean Lapierre lied because—
Hon. André Ouellet: No, Mr. Lapierre was probably not lying. Perhaps Mr. Lapierre was invited at the very last minute. That might well be.
Mr. Michel Guimond: But there had been invitations printed.
Hon. André Ouellet: I don't know—
Mr. Michel Guimond: At that party—
Hon. André Ouellet: You seem to know more than I do about it.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. As a lawyer—you know very well that in law—as Mr. Heenan would certainly have told you—when faced with uncooperative witnesses such as yourself we have to ask questions to which we already know the answers.
Mr. Ouellet—
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry again. The member of Parliament is saying I am--
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: An uncooperative witness.
Hon. André Ouellet: An uncooperative witness.
The Chair: Mr. Guimond, please.
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet: I think I'm answering all the questions he's asking me.
The Chair: Mr. Ouellet is required to answer the questions regarding chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report, with the exception of cabinet confidences, because he was in cabinet prior to the time we have the authorization for. He is not to answer everything he knows, because we have specific terms of reference. That is why anything outside those terms of reference can be deferred.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, please.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As CEO of Canada Post, were you not putting yourself in an awkward position accepting an invitation to the party, a small, intimate affair with a dinner fit for a king, at Jean Lafleur's chalet, given that two other Crown corporation CEOs were also present, including Marc LeFrançois and Jean Carle, who was Vice-President?
Were you not put in an awkward position, or do you see nothing wrong with having attended this party at Jean Lafleur's chalet?
Hon. André Ouellet: I think that deciding what friends to see and where to go is a personal decision. I accepted the invitation because Mr. Lafleur had become a friend. I considered him a friend, and it was in that capacity that I attended the party at his chalet.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Last week, Mr. LeFrançois of VIA Rail stated that it was not the Crown corporations that decided to use the government, but rather the government that decided to go this route.
Do you agree with Mr. LeFrançois's comment?
Hon. André Ouellet: I do not want to comment on what Mr. LeFrançois said here, in answer to a question put to him. However, I can tell you that Canada Post was not used by the government.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Guimond.
Mr. Mills, please, you have eight minutes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I believe I'm sharing my time, Mr. Chair, with four minutes, I believe.
The Chair: With Mr. Proulx? Do you want me to let you know in four minutes?
Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes, thank you.
I'd like to begin, colleagues, by reminding Canadians a little bit about the distinguished career our witness has had in serving this country.
I first came to Parliament Hill in 1980, and I witnessed personally the work of Mr. Ouellet when we won the first referendum, sixty-forty. I witnessed his participation in bringing home the Constitution for Canada. I witnessed his work on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as well in 1993 when he was our Minister of Foreign Affairs for Canada. There are very few of us who can boast the way he can boast of the great service he's given to Parliament. I can understand why the Bloc Québécois from time to time become a little excited when they see Mr. Ouellet, because he reminds them of his commitment to the federalist cause, and both times we won.
I don't want to get into the Maurice Richard question today, because as Mr. LeFrançois told all of us last week, Neilsen—that's an independent agency—evaluated that particular project, and Canadians in fact received four times the value for the money that was invested in that project.
I want to go to this Stampin' the Future. In your opening remarks you mentioned, Mr. Ouellet, that in 1996 the philatelic group generated around $11 million in revenue, and it grew by 2003 to $33 million for the year. I think most Canadians would accept that this is pretty good management. My question has to do with the evaluation process for the subjects for these stamps—the criteria for deciding on these stamps. I cannot imagine that when you're deciding on these stamp choices you could immediately link a dollar value. I remember when a group of us lobbied you profusely to produce a stamp with John Paul II.
I think Canadians should hear and understand how you decide on criteria for those stamps, and whether the inventory of those stamps that haven't been bought, if there's a reserve, is also an asset that has future revenue potential as the value for those stamps goes up.
¹ (1540)
Hon. André Ouellet: The stamp advisory committee is composed of people who have knowledge of philately and who are graphists, artists, collectors, or dealers. A great variety of people sit on the stamp advisory committee. They have to look at what other countries do. We are always influenced by the stamp programs of other countries. We are motivated to create the best possible stamps in terms of excellence in graphics. But we are always restrained by the anniversaries and activities that take place in a given year.
I repeat what I said before. Only a few stamps generate money. All of the others are chosen for historic, artistic, or industrial reasons. Basically, we make a distinction between those stamps that we think we are obligated to produce and those that we think are going to generate revenue. It's in this area that we have been much more creative. We have been able to deal with subjects that are popular, such as the youth program and the hockey program, to generate more revenue.
Mr. Dennis Mills: I need to know from Mr. Ouellet whether the audit team that evaluated this stamp for the future program had an opportunity to understand how that value was created for taxpayers.
Hon. André Ouellet: I don't think so because in the report they look at this as sponsorship rather than as a commercial matter.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. I'm not sure what that had to do with chapters 3, 4, and 5, but it's on the record.
Monsieur Proulx.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ouellet, in answer to a question I asked you this morning on whether you discussed the Maurice Richard project with Mr. Gagliano or his team, you said that at the time the minister was Mrs. Marleau, not Mr. Gagliano. I did some research accordingly. In your opening statement, you said that Mr. Scully had approached Canada Post toward the end of 1997. Mrs. Marleau was Minister until June 11, 1997, and Mr. Gagliano was appointed her successor on June 11, 1997. We got our dates wrong
I will ask you the question again. You answered it in part, saying that you had not spoken to Mr. Gagliano. However, have you ever spoken to his political staff, his assistants, his chief of staff or people in his office?
¹ (1545)
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I have not.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.
Mr. Ouellet, I would refer you to the diagram on page 16 of the Auditor General's report.
The first series of arrows shows that in May 1998, Lafleur Communication received $82,240 to produce 18 prototypes at $2,750 each, for an amount totalling $49,500. This means that Lafleur Communication received a commission of 66%. That arrow continues straight to Canada Post.
Did this in fact go right up to Canada Post? What was the extent of Canada Post's involvement? And what are those prototypes?
Hon. André Ouellet: Which page is this on?
Mr. Marcel Proulx: The diagram is on page 16 of the English version of the Auditor General's report. In the French version, I believe it is on page 18.
The first series of arrows at the top shows that $82,240 were paid to Lafleur Communication, and that arrow continues to Canada Post, though there is no amount shown there. There is only an indication that 18 prototypes were produce. On the line below, we see the same thing for an amount of $32,500. Were prototypes in fact submitted to Canada Post?
Hon. André Ouellet: In the Auditor General's report, it is mentioned somewhere that Canada Post had paid Lafleur and that the government had also paid Lafleur.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Forgive me, that might be shown in the third series of arrows, since the Auditor General notes that Lafleur was paid a commission by PWGSC, and that you then turned over a portion of the money to Lafleur. Administration costs represent 17.65% of the overall total.
Hon. André Ouellet: We asked our attorney to contact Lafleur Communication and ask them to explain this. Since we were not aware the government was paying Lafleur, we had always believed we were the only organization paying Lafleur directly.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: But with respect to the first two lines, what if anything did Canada Post get for the money it spent?
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course, we received all of the mock-ups, all the work done by Lafleur Communication. I gave you the list of everything that Lafleur was asked to do, and it is clear that—
Mr. Marcel Proulx: But you indicated that this came out of your share of the $516,000, and not out of the two—
Hon. André Ouellet: Of course.
[English]
The Chair: You'll have to talk to Mr. Mills.
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet: What I'm telling you is that if the government paid Lafleur, we do not know anything about it. We sent a letter asking Lafleur how it was that they were paid directly and whether—
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Whether they charged you a second time.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Merci beaucoup.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Ouellet, you've presented yourself and the Canada Post Corporation as an individual and an entity that have been unjustly treated in the Auditor General's report.
Can you tell us why you think you were suspended then?
Hon. André Ouellet: I think it's very clear. The statement was made publicly that because of the Auditor General's report, I was suspended.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yet you believe it wasn't justified, and you've tried to make your case to correct that. Are you upset at all with the Prime Minister, Paul Martin?
Hon. André Ouellet: It's not for me to pass judgment on the decision of the government. I am appointed to serve. If there were different shareholders, they could decide whether or not to retain management. It would be at their discretion. I don't quarrel with that. In private companies there's a sale and a new owner. The new owner comes in and says, “I don't like this president. I'm going to make a change.”
I'm not quarrelling with the fact that the government can say it no longer wants me. Tell me the reasons why. If the reasons are only these two cases that have been brought in by the Auditor General, I'm responding to you that I think we acted in very good faith in the interest of the company. Frankly, I don't believe I should be suspended for those two cases, particularly because they both took place before I became the CEO of the company, and particularly because of my record as president and CEO for the last five years.
¹ (1550)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate that. However, the Auditor General, in her report, passed positive comment on deserving areas within government. She certainly singled out some crown corporations that she felt were not in question, in terms of ethics around the sponsorship file or advertising. But she did make very serious comments about Canada Post.
You've implied that perhaps her comments or findings were unwarranted. Why would the Auditor General single out or persecute Canada Post?
Hon. André Ouellet: Obviously, she had to rely on the information she received from the people who came to Canada Post to look at our books. In a letter she sent me in September, she finished by saying, “In closing, we would like to thank you and your staff for the assistance and cooperation our audit team received.”
I'm frankly surprised that we've been put, in regard to the Maurice Richard series, in the same paragraph that dealt with the government dealings of Maurice Richard. That surprised us very much, and we think it's unfair.
The stamp program is a tremendous success, and I don't think they looked at it at all.
The remarks of the Auditor General in reference to some paper documents, some approbation not being given--yes, but it took place six and seven years ago. I have been the president for more than four years, and I've changed a lot of things. Certainly, as I said in my original remarks, we have put in place systems, and if they had been in place then, some of her comments would not have been relevant at all, would not have taken place.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But why did the Auditor General have such trouble getting into Canada Post when you were in charge? In fact, Canada Post was the only corporation that required an order in council in order to do the audit.
Hon. André Ouellet: Yes, you're quite right. It's because the Auditor General is not designated as the Canada Post Corporation auditor. In fact, for all of the other crown corporations, the Auditor General is the auditor. In our case, we are a crown corporation at arm's length from the government. As I said earlier, we are not a burden to the taxpayers; in fact, we're returning revenue to the taxpayers. We are making money and in fact are paying dividends to the taxpayers of Canada. So it took a special authorization that was granted by the governor in council to allow her to look at our books.
We welcomed her. We cooperated fully with her and we answered all the questions she asked. We lived by the order in council and gave her all the documents she was entitled to receive according to the governor in council document.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So are you saying it was just pro formaand there was no other way you could have done it--for example, just simply saying, come in and you're welcome to look at our books?
Hon. André Ouellet: No. It was not for me to decide. This is the way it is done. If the Auditor General wanted to come to Canada Post, she had to have authorization by the governor in council, and she got it. I was supportive of it. Our minister at the time, Mr. Collenette, was supportive of it. There were no problems with that.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My sense from the Auditor General's report is that she is applying a broad standard of ethics across the board, from government to crown corporations, and expecting to see some normal rules in place and some proper regulations and good business practices. I think what she said in the case of both her audit of the Department of Public Works and of crown corporations like Canada Post was that you were sorely lacking in those basic ethical standards and practices--transparent accounting.
It is not that helpful to split hairs in terms of whether it was sponsorship, or commercial, or advertising, or whatever. The fact is, it was money going to support projects that happened, in this well-documented case, to go through middle agencies that took a cut. That is where we are trying to track the $100 million.
So weren't you at all concerned when you saw the path that this was taking through Canada Post, about that $78,000? Didn't you want to know what it was for? Did you ask what it was for?
¹ (1555)
Hon. André Ouellet: First of all, it was our officials who were dealing with the stamp projects who became aware of this, and they said, well, this is the way the government is paying. They didn't question it and they accepted the money, and that was done.
It was done with no malign intention at all. The money was accepted or received in good faith, and as far as the money we spend is concerned, I'm telling you that we establish a very rigorous process and follow it thoroughly.
I had no chance to tell you that these comments go back to six and seven years ago. I'm telling you that things at Canada Post, the way we are administering, the way we are managing, have substantially improved, and I don't think the same reproach would be applicable today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.
Mr. Ouellet, I have a couple of questions myself.
I am quoting from the Ottawa Sun of February 19, 2004. The headline is “MP Andre Ouellet was responsible for the party's election advertising in Quebec”. I'm quoting from that particular article:
| It was also well-known that Ouellet had a particular talent for ensuring the firms that offered those advertising services to the Grits for free during campaigns were later rewarded with federal contracts. |
I think that's contrary to your earlier testimony when you said you were not responsible for advertising in Quebec. Have you at any time used the powers of the federal government in awarding contracts to repay advertising firms for any work done during any election in the province of Quebec?
Hon. André Ouellet: Never.
The Chair: Okay.
Hon. André Ouellet: In fact, I'm glad you brought this article to my attention. I'll have our lawyers look at this as to whether we should not sue these people for absolutely false allegations.
The Chair: I have two problems. One, you tell us in your opening statement that Canada Post is a well-run organization, and I'm not going to dispute that.
Hon. André Ouellet: I hope not, with the profit we made last year.
The Chair: No, I don't dispute that, but what I'm trying to get my mind around is that whenever the CCSB program is involved, be it with Canada Post, VIA Rail, or anything else, there is never any documentation.
Hon. André Ouellet: I'm sorry--
The Chair: Well, I mean negligible documentation.
Hon. André Ouellet: Don't link us with the others. There's only one single reference to CCSB in our...only one.
The Chair: There are basically two issues we've been talking about today, and I'm quoting from the Auditor General--
Hon. André Ouellet: No, I'm sorry, there's only one. We never received any money for the Maurice Richard thing. The only time we received money--
The Chair: Under the sponsorship program here--and you had the opportunity to provide the documentation--the Auditor General said, “We did not see any documentation to support Canada Post's decision.” It's not just the fact that Canada Post didn't seem to have documentation; VIA Rail didn't have documentation; nobody who was ever touched by Chuck Guité ever had documentation.
Now, I can understand that for a large organization with $6 billion in revenue not everything is perfect. Sometimes you may forget; maybe a contract was drawn up but not properly signed.
º (1600)
Hon. André Ouellet: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with you. We had documentation; I just tabled some documentation for you. We had a signed letter of intent with full explanations from L'Information essentielle, so we had documentation.
The Chair: We see here in the Auditor General's report that they did not see any documentation to support your decision. Now, you have this letter of intent but nothing to support....
Now, just let me finish, Mr. Ouellet.
With a large organization, I understand and will accept the fact that sometimes things don't get done exactly right; for example, a contract may be drawn up but the signature is overlooked. But it seems to me that whenever Mr. Guité became involved with whatever organization he became involved in, the contracts weren't drawn up, the cost-benefit analyses weren't there, the budget wasn't there, the objectives weren't there, and the plan wasn't there; it just seems the cheque was written and that was it.
Now, you got caught in the same situation, and I wonder what the conversations or discussions were between Mr. Guité and Canada Post--and of course we have to ask for the others.
Why, any time he was involved, was there never the proper documentation there to support the arguments? That's one question.
Another one is--
Hon. André Ouellet: I'll answer this question. We never spoke to Mr. Guité. We never had any contact with Mr. Guité.
The Chair: But my point is that if Canada Post is a well-run organization, why does this one not have a contract and all that stuff? All you have is your letter of intent, which doesn't go any further.
Hon. André Ouellet: About what?
The Chair: About the Maurice Richard--
Hon. André Ouellet: Please be rigorous, Mr. Chairman. I told you we had received no money from Guité on the Maurice Richard thing, so don't say we got money. We never got any money from Guité on the Maurice Richard series.
The Chair: My apologies; it was on the sponsorship program there with the $715,000 that goes through the communications agency to Canada Post, and it goes on from there. There's no documentation to speak of.
Hon. André Ouellet: I told you. I gave an explanation of how the program was run, and I undertook to send you documentation. I told you we had given documentation to the Auditor General's people. I don't know why they say we don't have enough documentation, but we do.
The Chair: You've made a clear distinction between stamp sponsorships, stamps that have a commercial return, and stamps you just do because you think it's a good idea to do them. The committee meets and the committee doesn't have any analysis. They committee just says, well, you know, this sounds like a good idea, all those in favour, and we do it.
I saw three categories: issuing of stamps on a whim--if I can use that terminology, because there's no substantiation--issuing of stamps for a commercial return, and sponsorships. Now, as to sponsorships, when you put your logo or some kind of logo out there, you were required by Treasury Board policy to get the Canada wordmark on there, yet I believe this sponsorship money was in some way, shape, or form to get the Canada wordmark out there again. Now, the Auditor General says that under Treasury Board guidelines:
| In return for receiving the funds, Canada Post provided visibility for the Government of Canada. We question the value of this sponsorship, since Canada Post was already required to display the Canada wordmark on all its corporate identity applications.... |
So you were getting paid to do something you were required to do without getting paid.
Hon. André Ouellet: It's obvious you didn't listen to my introductory remarks—
The Chair: Well, I did try to listen, Mr. Ouellet.
Hon. André Ouellet: —because I answered all of these questions in my original statement. With due respect to you, you're asking me questions I have already answered. I've already explained to this committee, clearly we did not consider either the Maurice Richard or the stamps as sponsorship activities. For us, they were both good commercial ventures, which not only generate revenue for Canada Post, but also give us good promotional visibility. We got excellent returns for our advertising money.
The Chair: I tend to think you're splitting hairs, from my perspective. Anybody in business gets into an advertising program, or a sponsorship program, or developing products to generate additional revenues. Whether you call it a sponsorship program or a stamp program, they're both based on enhancing your corporation. To say there were some rules for one and other rules for the others I think is splitting hairs.
º (1605)
Hon. André Ouellet: No, it's not splitting hairs. There are rules for sponsorship projects, and we respect these rules when we do sponsorships. The Auditor General said, you didn't respect the sponsorship rules. We said, don't ask us to respect the sponsorship rules; we don't think it's sponsorship. We're telling you it is a marketing venture, so don't ask us to apply to a marketing venture the rules of a sponsorship project. These are two different things.
The Chair: But surely on a sponsorship program or a marketing program you do the analysis to say this should return a benefit to the corporation; it's going to give us higher exposure leading to better sales, better profitability.
Hon. André Ouellet: And that's what we did.
The Chair: But we haven't been able to find these things, as far as I can see.
Hon. André Ouellet: I told you we gave this documentation to the Auditor General's people, and I undertook to send it to you. Frankly, when I told you.... The very fact that we moved from revenue of $11 million to now $33 million surely means we know what we're doing, and we're doing good business.
The Chair: Well, we'll leave that one alone. We're just finishing up; we're over time. I have one final point, Mr. Ouellet.
You have in your possession a large number of documents provided to you by Canada Post, and we have a huge number of documents provided to us by many other organizations, including Public Works and so on. Is it possible for you to table the documents you received from Canada Post so that they're part of the record of this investigation?
Hon. André Ouellet: I have here the minutes of the standing committee, so you already have them. Here is the last financial statement of Canada Post. Here are the press releases announcing that we made $253 million. Here is chapter 3, sur le “programme des commandites”, en français; this is the text in English. Basically these are all documents that, except for the Information essentielle document, which I've already tabled, I wrote on and prepared with. I don't think I will be adding anything new to what you already have.
The Chair: Is what you're saying that the documents you received from Canada Post are all on the public record at this point?
Hon. André Ouellet: Absolutely.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Desrochers pointed out to me that he had a question he didn't feel was properly asked. I didn't have a chance to ask it; therefore, he can put it in writing, and we'll submit it to you.
Mr. MacKay, did you say you have a notice of motion?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, Mr. Chair.
In follow-up to your own request, I would give notice of motion that in relation to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Auditor General's report, this committee request the day timer and/or agenda booklet for Mr. André Ouellet during his tenure at Canada Post, January 1996 to February 24, 2003.
I would also put forward a motion that in relation to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Auditor General's report, this committee request any and all correspondence relating to the sponsorship and/or advertising and/or marketing venture of Canada Post, or at the request of Mr. André Ouellet during his tenure at Canada Post.
The Chair: Okay, that's a notice of motion. You'll submit it to the clerk, and we'll get it drafted in both official languages and circulate it.
Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I do not have a question for Mr. Ouellet. I would like to clarify two things, Mr. Williams. Where are we—
[English]
The Chair: As I mentioned, we can't really start another round.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to know where we are with respect to Mr. Guité's testimony. Have we had any news since last week? Will he appear before the committee on the 22nd and 23rd?
[English]
The Chair: As far as I know, he's here on April 22 and 23. We've heard nothing to the contrary. He's scheduled for two days--that's Thursday and Friday.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to ask a final question.
Given that the testimony recently given by prominent witnesses has often contradicted Mrs. Fraser, would it not be advisable to invite her back so that she could give us more details about the findings in the chapters in question?
[English]
The Chair: It's something we'll discuss with the steering committee, to see if perhaps she should be here at the time that Mr. Guité is here or if we should bring her in at some other time.
The meeting is adjourned.