PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

¹

1545

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

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough)

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy (As Individual)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

¹

1550

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth)

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

¹

1555

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

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

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1600

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1605

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1610

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

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

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Hon. Joe Jordan

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Hon. Joe Jordan

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Hon. Joe Jordan

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1615

Hon. Joe Jordan

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1625

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1630

The Chair

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

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1635

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1640

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1645

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Isabelle Roy

º

1650

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

º

1655

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Isabelle Roy

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

»

1705

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

Ms. Isabelle Roy

The Chair

»

1710

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

The Chair

»

1715

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 028

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): We're back in session, and I would ask Ms. Isabelle Roy to please come forward and take her seat, please.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we were asking our clerk here about the payment of fees. The clerks are very efficient, and they have prepared a report. I'm going to circulate that, and then before the close of business tonight I'll call the vote on the payment of legal fees for public servants. You'll remember we talked about that this morning. We have enough copies in both official languages. I'll have that distributed, and we'll call the vote before we close business.

    Mr. MacKay, you may recall, gave notice of motion a few days ago, on April 13 actually--that in relation to chapters 3, 4, and 5.... Do we have these circulated, by the way? We'd better get these circulated.

    Is that all right, Mr. MacKay? Can we deal with these at the close of business?

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough): That's fine, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: So we'll deal with these at the same time as well, at the close of business this afternoon.

    Continuing on where we left off, it was supposed to be Mr. Kenney, who is absent. Ms. Ablonczy will take his place.

    Four minutes, Ms. Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Welcome back, Madam.

    The Chair: My apologies. Do I normally read the orders of the day again? I see, we don't have a new agenda.

    You can continue, Ms. Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Welcome back, and I hope you had a good rest while we were being well behaved and mannerly in question period.

    You had joined the sponsorship section in May 2000, I believe. Is that correct?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy (As Individual): Yes.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: And Mr. Tremblay had become director in September 1999.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Sorry, can you rephrase that?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Tremblay had become director in September 1999.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes, acting executive director.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I had tried yesterday with Mr. Boulay to talk about a meeting that took place with Mr. Tremblay and the representatives of the advertising agencies sometime after Mr. Tremblay became director, and there was a discussion at that meeting about some changes in the way the sponsorship program worked. Are you aware of this meeting?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes, I am.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: And do you know when it took place?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think it took place either just prior to the internal audit being public.... There was a meeting with all of the communication agencies, and I was present at that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to inform people that Mr. Tremblay was now the acting executive director of CCSB, that he was in charge of the sponsorship program, and also that there was an internal audit that had been requested and the results were to be published soon, and there would be some changes as a result of that.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was this the meeting that took place in September 2000 at a retreat, I think a golf retreat in Quebec?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There were two meetings. There was one meeting that was held prior to the internal audit being released, and there was another one just before a new competitive process.... I'm not sure when, but there were two.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With respect to the first meeting, were you personally present at that meeting?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes, I was at both meetings.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Can you tell us who appeared or who else was present?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: From what I can remember, there was the president of each of the communication agencies that were involved in the management of the sponsorship. There may have been one absent, but overall I think they were all present.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was Mr. Boulay present?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was he present at the second meeting as well?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I believe so.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Was anyone else present from Groupe Everest in addition to Mr. Boulay?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: In the second meeting, I think there was someone from Media/IDA Vision, but I'm not 100% sure.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You may or may not be aware that yesterday Mr. Boulay told this committee that he was not at the first meeting.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That's possible. As I mentioned, I know at the first meeting one or two presidents were absent. I can't remember who, but I know one or two were absent.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's why I was double-checking. Are you sure Mr. Boulay was at the first meeting?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: At the first one, I don't remember for sure, but I know that following both meetings, from what I can remember, there were minutes taken. I think there were some minutes taken, and that would be available for you to confirm.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Could you produce those to the committee?

¹  (1550)  

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I can't remember producing that, but I'm sure that through the Department of Public Works you would be able to get that information.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, do you know whether we have those minutes?

    The Chair: I apologize, I was otherwise engaged.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'll follow up with you in a few minutes.

    Do you remember the name of anyone else from Groupe Everest who might have been present at the first or second meeting, besides Mr. Boulay?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: As I said, at the first one I know there were one or two presidents absent. At the second one, I'm pretty sure Monsieur Boulay was there, and I think there was someone from Media/IDA Vision there, but I don't remember the name.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: At the first meeting, Mr. Tremblay talked about some changes that would be taking place. Is that correct?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Can you outline the nature of those changes?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was basically to explain that at the time of Mr. Guité.... Basically it was that documentation on files was.... There may have been a lot of verbal discussion with Mr. Guité at the time, but he was now in charge and I was newly also involved in the sponsorship, and additional requests in terms of visibility would most likely be requested of those agencies and they would have to comply with that additional information.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, would you have the clerks distribute to the committee the minutes of both meetings that took place between the advertising agencies and Mr. Tremblay and his department, and if those minutes are not available, that we obtain them from the Department of Public Works so that they can be distributed?

    The Chair: Okay, I think for production of documents that should be fine. We will send a request down to the Department of Public Works for a copy of these minutes and see if they are available.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That is for both meetings the witness referred to.

    The Chair: Yes, for both meetings.

    Mr. Mills, please. You have four minutes.

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Roy, if I understood you accurately, you worked for three years as an exempt staff person in the minister's office, and then you went into the department in approximately May 2000.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was in May 1999.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: How many months did you work with Mr. Guité?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was from May until August. I arrived in May 1999, and he left in August 1999.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Did you work directly with him?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I mainly reported to Mr. Tremblay, and Mr. Tremblay reported to Mr. Guité. On some occasions, Mr. Guité may have asked me questions on specific files, but that was very limited.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay.

    In your opening remarks you mentioned that your responsibility there was to do analysis of sponsorship files.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Eventually, yes.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Could you please tell me exactly what you did?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Basically, I would take the file and make sure we had a proposal on file that stipulated the amount requested and the visibility. There was usually a short executive summary produced from a database that was put on file. Then I would meet with Mr. Tremblay and discuss the file.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Did you participate in any of the analysis of the sponsorship?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: We would discuss those files verbally.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: What kinds of things would you discuss? Could you give me an example of an event?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Initially there were no official guidelines in place. Some guidelines eventually developed. For instance, events we were to sponsor had to take place within the current fiscal year and within Canada. A decision was based on some considerations, but there was no formal analysis in the file.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: What were the types of considerations?

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Where the event was taking place, whether this event had been sponsored in the past, and whether this event, if it happened the previous year, had been successful. These are some of the considerations that were taken into account, as well as whether there was any recommendation or input received from the minister's office.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: You mentioned that you put all of this work on a database.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes. There was no formal analysis done in the file, but in the database we would document where the event took place, what amount they were requesting, what amount was approved, and which agency managed the project.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: When there was a question put to you earlier by one of my colleagues, you said the ad agencies had to supply supporting evidence for the visibility and the post-mortem.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Agencies would negotiate with the event organizer the visibility for a specific event. If, say, we'd approved an event for $5,000, they would negotiate with the event organizer the type of visibility that would be offered to the Government of Canada. They would submit to us the visibility we would receive in return for that $5,000. Then I and eventually two other colleagues would review what they were proposing, and we would either agree with that or we would ask them to go back to the event organizer requesting additional visibility.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Did you find that a lot of the people who requested those events cooperated with you when you went back and asked them for more visibility for Canada?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: With the agencies?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: We would go back to the agencies, and they would tell us whether we could get more, depending on the timing, or that the amount given was all they could provide.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr Tonks.

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

    I'd like to follow up a little on the thrust of what Mr. Mills was asking you about. You confirmed what Mr. Tremblay told us, that there didn't appear to be any structure or formal rules. In your reply to Mr. Mills you indicated you did have a sense in your mind of what the sponsorship program was designed to achieve and some criteria that you applied in your analysis. Is that correct?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Initially, to my knowledge, when it was managed by Monsieur Guité, there were no guidelines in place. Decisions were made on a judgment call. These sponsorship guidelines were eventually drafted and used as a tool. There were different elements taken into consideration, but in the end, the decision was made by Mr. Tremblay, and it was a subjective decision.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: During that time, though, your role.... You were at CCSB.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: You were involved in making an analysis and making a recommendation to Mr. Tremblay.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

    Did you ever feel that there were sponsorships that didn't conform to the sense of what the rules were, from your perspective? Were there some that you just didn't think were good ones...that sort of the rules were being bent?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: There were some.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

    And would you report those...? At the time you would be reporting through to Mr. Tremblay, would you note that to him, saying, for instance, I don't think these ones really fit into the architecture or the analysis that we're applying?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Sometimes I may have told him, you know, I don't necessarily think we should sponsor it. He may have had a different opinion. At the end of the day, it was his final decision.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Did he ever make decisions to your satisfaction that he listened to your advice? For instance, you'd say “Here's one, Mr. Tremblay, that I don't think fits the rules,” and he'd reply “You know what? I think you may be right on that one.”

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was more of an.... Sometimes he agreed, sometimes he disagreed.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: All right.

    Did he ever tell you that he went to the minister and said, “You know what? You had advised me that this particular application shouldn't be approved...”? Did he ever inform you that the minister was overriding that particular analysis and recommendation?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Sometimes I may have had discussions with Mr. Tremblay on specific files, and he would have made a decision or might think that a project should not be approved, but the minister's office may have suggested differently.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: It “may” have suggested differently. But I guess my question is, do you ever recall Mr. Tremblay saying to you, “Ms. Roy, we informed the minister of your analysis on that one, and that program is not being approved”? Did he ever say that to you?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That this program is not approved, or it has to be approved...?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Or that the minister has agreed that it shouldn't go ahead. Did you ever get that kind of feedback?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes. Some decisions were overturned by the minister's office, yes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Do I have another minute, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: No, I'm sorry, you don't have another minute.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Then I'll come back.

    The Chair: You're right on the nose, at four minutes and ten seconds.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay, four minutes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll pick up where Mr. Tonks left off.

    First of all, thank you very much for being here, Madam Roy.

    About those decisions that were “overturned”, as you put it, are you aware of specific communications that took place either over the phone or directly between Mr. Tremblay and ministers' offices?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not that I'm aware of. Usually I would be in contact with the minister's office, doing the liaison. Sometimes the person I was dealing with would advise me that, for whatever reason, this project had to be approved. In those cases, I would raise it to Mr. Tremblay, and he--

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Madam Roy, but which minister?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Always Minister Gagliano.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Always Minister Gagliano.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I was in contact with Minister Gagliano's office, doing the liaison.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're not aware of any other interventions. In your testimony today, you're not telling us that there were interventions from any other minister's office to Mr. Tremblay, that you're aware of.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: As for other ministers' offices, I don't know, but there were other MPs calling Mr. Tremblay regarding specific projects, yes.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you recall any of those other MPs?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There--

    The Chair: We did actually cover that off this morning, so....

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

    Back to this issue of when you felt that rules were being overridden or bypassed, who was responsible for that? Who was giving the okay for rules to be bypassed or overridden?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: When you say “rules”, can you specify exactly what you mean? A decision, or processes...?

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Both--a decision to approve a particular sponsorship program, or grant, and the rules that pertain to that, the types of criteria you were discussing with Mr. Mills. That is, had they received money before, were they in a certain region, did they meet the boundaries of what was hoped to be accomplished?

    Where was the direction coming from if the rules were not being followed?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I wish to point out that rules.... These were more guidelines. There was consideration taken during the approval process. I don't think it was rules, in a sense, but more of a consideration taken. They were not bound by specific elements.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And you never saw anything written down, or there wasn't ever anything that said “We must meet the following criteria”.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There were guidelines, and some elements of those guidelines, which I did mention, were looked at, but at the end of the day, a lot of it was a judgment call made by the executive director.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: When you were working with Mr. Tremblay, or prior to that, did you ever witness any information being deleted, or files being shredded?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not that I recall. The files that came in were regarding specific projects, and they were entered into the database.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Were you ever contacted by anyone from the PCO or the PMO? Was there ever direct contact with Mr. Tremblay that you recall?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think I have answered. The PCO? Not that I recall. The PMO? I think I responded to that this morning.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: In the relationship that existed between your boss, Mr. Tremblay, and other ministers--again, just to be perfectly clear--you weren't aware of direct interventions that took place while you were in the office.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There were calls from members of Parliament to Mr. Tremblay on various files. Sometimes a project may have been approved or refused, and members of Parliament would call asking whether a decision could be changed or not. These calls were made to Mr. Tremblay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And did you witness those decisions being reversed?

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay, we are going to close there.

    Are you ready, Mr. Proulx, for four minutes?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    Good afternoon, Ms. Roy and Mr. Landriault. Thank you for coming before the committee today.

    Ms. Roy, I am sorry that I was not here earlier; I was at another committee. According to my notes from this morning, you said that part of your work, beginning in May 1999, involved reviewing the post-mortem reports.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: From what you remember, what was in those post-mortem reports that were sent to you by the communication agencies?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Generally speaking, in keeping with the visibility plan that had been approved, there were supporting documents and photos indicating the visibility that the Government of Canada had received in return for the sponsorship.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: So these were supporting documents that were put together by the communication agencies in accordance with their mandate, their contract for a given event, which were sent to you along with the invoice, I suppose, for the balance or the amounts that were owed under the sponsorship deal.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: The final report and the invoice did not necessarily arrive at the same time. the agencies could submit their report, which might contain, as I mentioned, photos, etc.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right. If I remember your testimony correctly from this morning, you said that no payment was made without a post-mortem or a final report that was relatively complete.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Following the internal audit, in response to the recommendations in the action plan, the agencies had to provide a post-mortem report before being paid.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: But how were things done during the time that you were there? You arrived there in May 1999.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: To my knowledge, in principle the agencies could not be paid unless they had submitted a report.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Very well. This morning my colleague, Mr. Desrochers, talked about the pressure that was brought to bear on Mr. Tremblay or on you. Rather than talk about pressure, is it possible to explain this by saying that representations were made by members of Parliament and ministers? These were not representations that had threats attached to them.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No. Once requests had been submitted in their riding, MPs would follow up with us to find out if a given project might be approved or rejected.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: During the time that you worked in Minister Gagliano's office, did you have an opportunity to work with Jean-Marc Bard?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: When I was in the minister's office? Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: What was Mr. Bard's role with respect to sponsorships during the time that you were in that office? And what was his role during the time that you were at Public Works?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: When I was in the minister's office, Mr. Bard was a senior officer. He was responsible for senior files in the minister's office. When Mr. Tremblay joined the public service to work in the CCSB, Mr. Bard became chief of staff. For a short period of time when I worked in the office, Mr. Bard was chief of staff.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: And when you were at Public Works, what was his role with respect to sponsorships?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: He was aware of all the sponsorship files, as Mr. Tremblay was when he was in the minister's office.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you. You said that Mr. Quail was informed of the sponsorship file. Can you tell me what you mean by « informed »?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: As far as I know, he received a list of the projects that were approved. I believe that he was made aware of the decisions in general. However, I do not think that he was necessarily made aware of all the details involved in day-to-day operations.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: From what I understand, he was aware in a general way.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

[English]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Merci.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

    Mr. Jordan, please, four minutes.

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

    I want to thank you, Madame Roy, for being here. I think you're probably wondering why all of the members are thanking you; it's because you are providing us with information and facts, and we've gone through a series of witnesses where that may not have been the case. You also are uniquely positioned, in the sense that you have been on both sides of this, in terms of working at the minister's office and also working at CCSB.

    I just want to pick up on a couple of things you said this morning. You said this morning that when you were in the minister's office and there was an intervention or a proposal for a sponsorship, there were a number of outcomes that might happen. One of them was that the minister strongly recommended a project. At any time when that happened, can you think back to what the rationale was for that? Did the minister ever give any specific reasons why he thought this particular project should be approved, or was it simply that the minister's recommendation was enough to move it forward with momentum?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I would say it was more a minister's recommendation to move forward.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: When you then found yourself at CCSB and were getting calls from the minister's office, you said in answer to Mr. MacKay that for various reasons this project should be approved. Can you think of any of those reasons? What reasons would they give for an attempt at ministerial override of the process? Can you think back to why they would push a specific project, or can you think of a specific project they pushed?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think the decision was more on a case-by-case basis. In the minister's office it was more a case-by-case basis.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: But you didn't get any sense of the reasons why they would feel necessary to intervene like that. I'm just trying to get a sense, in the absence of guidelines and criteria, of what was guiding their decisions as to what was a project worth approval and what wasn't, because as you've said, and I think we have found through testimony up until now, this was a very subjective algorithm they were using.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I'm not sure.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: In terms of the objectives of the sponsorship program, do you have any kind of clarity in your own mind as to what this program was supposed to be doing?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I knew this program had been initially created following the referendum. Overall, the intent was to increase the federal presence and visibility for the Government of Canada, and that was done through the sponsorship; the sponsorship program was a vehicle in which the government could attain these specific objectives.

º  (1615)  

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Just based on your own experience--and I realize this is your own opinion--independent of the administrative issues, do you think this was a good program? I think there are a lot of Canadians who are wondering whether this was something the government should have been doing. Was this something the government should have been undertaking?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I don't think that's up to me to decide. There was a government decision to move ahead and to go forward with this program, and I was not there to necessarily question whether or not the government should be doing this activity or not.

    The Chair: We're now going to start another round of eight minutes, but I think we'll have a five-minute health break at this point in time.

º  (1616)  

---

º  (1622)  

    The Chair: We're now going to resume. We're now back in session.

    We've completed the first round, and now we're back to eight-minute rounds, with Ms. Ablonczy for the first eight minutes.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

    Madame Roy, I would like to turn to the Auditor General's report, which you said you've read. The Auditor General talked about the sponsorship program as it ran from 1999 to August 2001. Of course, you had a lot to do with the program as a special assistant to Minister Gagliano in his office, and from May 1999 you were directly involved in the sponsorship program. The Auditor General said the program was run in a way that showed little regard for contracting rules and regulations, transparency, and value for money. I want to make it clear that in my discussion with you I am not putting any blame on you personally for this, but I do want to explore this, because that is really the purpose of this committee.

    The Auditor General said those responsible for managing the program broke the government's own rules in the way they selected communications agencies and awarded contracts to them, and she went on to talk about some of the problems in the program. When the Auditor General speaks about those responsible for managing the program, as someone who was intimately involved in the program, who would you understand those someones to be?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I would say Monsieur Guité and Monsieur Tremblay. They were the ones responsible for the sponsorship program as a whole.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It seems inexplicable that responsible, long-term public servants would suddenly throw the rule book out of the window at any point and do the things the Auditor General spoke about. Basically, as you know, she said they broke every rule in the book. From your knowledge of Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay, what would have motivated them to go AWOL in this way, to start breaking the rules and acting in a way that has caused such serious concern among Canadians and brought this committee to this study?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think these are questions they should provide a response to. They were the ones who had to manage the program. It was up to them to make sure that whatever processes or controls they knew had to be there were put in place. It was up to them to make sure that was being done.

º  (1625)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You said that when this problem first came out in 2002 with the internal audit, Minister Gagliano was briefed on that audit. Were you present at that briefing?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do you know what Mr. Gagliano's response was? Was that discussed in your presence?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The Auditor General said over $100 million of the program spending of $250 million was paid to communications agencies as production fees and commissions. She went on to say there was very little evidence that any actual work had been done by the communications agencies to earn that $100 million in production fees and commissions. Are you in a position to enlighten the committee as to what might have been given by the communications agencies in return for this $100 million in production fees and commissions?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I've read the report, and I know it mentioned $100 million in commission fees. I don't know how that number was calculated. The agencies were paid a 12% commission to manage sponsorship projects. There was a 3% commission paid to Media/IDA Vision for projects of $25,000 and more. Agencies were paid, I believe, some 17% commission for production fees. But how the $100 million was calculated I don't know.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Were the amounts of the production fees and commissions standard in the industry, to your best knowledge, or do you know?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That's what I was told.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We have had quite a discussion about the Maurice Richard series. You were there for part of the time when money was transferred for that series. We haven't been able to get an explanation of why communications agencies earned very large sums of money for, it appears, essentially passing a cheque from CCSB to L'information essentielle. Are you in a position to add any observations or information for this committee on the transfer of funds on that particular project?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: On the Maurice Richard file?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's correct.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I wasn't involved in the file at all.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Were you involved in any of the other files that were highlighted by the Auditor General, and do you have any information that you feel might be of assistance to the committee about payments to advertising agencies?

    The Auditor General talks about the millennium series, the innovation series, the port of Montreal, Canada Post sponsorships, etc. If you've read the report, I know you're familiar with the RCMP's 125th anniversary celebration.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: On Le Vieux-Port de Montréal, I was not involved in deciding on the amount and that the sponsorship be given. On that file, there were some vignettes that had to be put on the screens. I was involved in the content of what was visible on the screens, but not on the decision to approve the contract.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do you have any other information on any of these other transactions with crown entities?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Offhand, on the file on L'information essentielle, before Mr. Tremblay left the organization I believe Monsieur Scully had made a request to receive funding for his series. Eventually that was handled by Communication Canada, but I was not involved in the decision.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy. I'm afraid your time is up.

[Translation]

    Mr. Desrochers, please. You have eight minutes.

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

    Ms. Roy, thank you for being here this afternoon. You have read the Auditor General's report, and I would like to know whether, in your opinion, other files have required the involvement of as many advertising agencies as the Maurice Richard series. There were five or six advertising agencies involved. Were there other projects that were as complex as that one, or is it the only one like that you were aware of in doing your work?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: To my knowledge, the files that I was responsible for were managed by an agency. For some projects that were approved, Canada Post and VIA Rail were involved, but not to that extent, at least not to my knowledge.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You told us this morning that when you worked for Mr. Gagliano, you acted as the liaison officer for ministers and MPs. Did you have contacts with the advertising agencies?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did people other than MPs call you, either liberal organizers or event organizers, to try to get information?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: My role was really to answer questions from MPs' assistants and their office staff.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That is really the work that you were doing?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: In the files that you handled, did you come across the name “Polygone”?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did Denis Coderre get in contact to discuss the Polygone files?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not to my knowledge.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: In the Polygone file, was there any mention of L'Almanach du peuple?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: And the Salon du grand air?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You said that events like the Salon du grand air never happened, but that money was spent on them. Were you aware of that situation?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: To my knowledge, that happened before I joined the public service.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Fine.

    I would like you to make a comparison between the Guité era, if I can call it that, and the Tremblay era.

    What important changes happened when Mr. Tremblay took over?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: As I mentioned this morning, he sent a letter to event organizers who had received a sponsorship in the fiscal year 1999-2000. They were advised that they had to submit a new proposal. As far as I know, whenever a file was submitted after that, there had to be a proposal. The proposal might be only a page long, but it had to contain an amount, a description of the event and a short description of the visibility.

    To my knowledge, when Mr. Guité was there, a file might contain only a contract or a contract plus an invoice. In some cases, there was a visibility plan. It varied.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You had two tasks. Your boss, Mr. Tremblay, spoke regularly to Mr. Guité. To your knowledge, did he complain that things were not done in quite the regular way in Mr. Guité's shop?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not that I was aware.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You were not aware of that at all?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did you see Mr. Tremblay discuss this with Mr. Gagliano, or did you still have the same responsibilities, that is as liaison officer with the members of Parliament and ministers?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I'm not necessarily aware of discussions that Mr. Tremblay had with the minister's office.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: It's been said that Mr. Guité spoke with Mr. Gagliano regularly. Did you often see Mr. Guité in Mr. Gagliano's office?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Mr. Gagliano met with people both on Parliament Hill and in the department. I was at the department. Occasionally, when Mr. Gagliano met with Mr. Guité at the department, I happened to see Mr. Guité, but I'm not necessarily aware of all the meetings they may have had.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Let me get back to what I call the Guité era and to the work Mr. Boulay did through his new firm which got 3 per cent. Was he responsible for ensuring that the work had been done properly by the agencies that worked for Public Works Canada, as per your instructions?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: You're talking about Media/IDA Vision?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Media/IDA Vision had a role to play with regard to payments, but the responsibility of ensuring that the work with the agencies had been done or not rested with the CCSB.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did the Media/IDA Vision group go on site to check whether work had been done or was that the responsibility of your branch, to your knowledge?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I don't think that Media/IDA Vision went on site because its role was to deal with payments. It was the communication firms whose mandate it was to manage the sponsorship who were responsible for going on site and checking whether the visibility that had been negotiated was properly delivered.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That was for deliverables, but who looked after the invoicing?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Invoicing was reviewed by a CCSB officer and the invoices were also sent to Media/IDA Vision.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did that officer report to Mr. Guité?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: The officer who reviewed invoices in our office?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: To your knowledge, were any invoices refused, amended or returned, or was everything done correctly?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Ms. Huguette Tremblay, whom you met, was responsible for invoices and requisitions. So she had the invoices. I know that in Mr. Guité's time, not many questions were asked about invoices received.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Before the late morning break, I asked you to identify very specific files that made Mr. Tremblay “uncomfortable”.

    Have you remembered this, or do you still think of various files, rather vaguely? Do you have any more precise information to give us?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was really on an individual basis. Without seeing the files, I could not necessarily tell you whether I had raised any issues.

    The case that I can give you as an example is that of the Old Port of Montreal, for which there was a 10-year agreement. To my mind, 10 years was quite surprising because normally, the contracts we had were on an annual basis. That's the type of question that I would raise with Mr. Tremblay concerning various files.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Were there any other cases like that?

    The Chair: A brief question.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: A brief question, did you say?

    You identified other cases such as that one, for which there was a five- or ten-year contract rather than a one-year contract?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not my knowledge.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Was it the only case?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That I was aware of, yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you.

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

    Ms. Jennings, you have eight minutes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Roy.

    Unlike other witnesses who have appeared before us, you have not provided a sort of resume that outlines your academic background and professional experience.

    Could you briefly describe your academic background and your professional experience?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I have a B.A. in commerce with honours in public policy and human resources. I received my degree from the University of Ottawa in 1994. As I mentioned, in 1996, I accepted a job in the government whip's office, and following that, I had other work experience which I described this morning.

º  (1640)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: What did you do between the time you received your degree from the University of Ottawa and 1996?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I received my degree in 1994. Between 1994 and 1996, I worked here, in a member of parliament's office.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.

    During the time you were a special assistant acting as a liaison between the minister's office and the office that managed the sponsorship program, did you have any contact with Mr. Guité?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I never really had any contact with him. Mr. Guité had contacts with either the chief of staff, or the minister.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Did you have any contact with staff members in the sponsorship branch while you were working in the minister's office?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: At the time, the person designated within the Directed Audits of the Management of Sponsorships at the Communications Coordination Services Branch was Ms. Huguette Tremblay.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Following that, in May 1999, you entered the public service and you were assigned to a position in this branch. Was there a competition?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: As I said this morning, a political employee can, after having—

[English]

After three consecutive years as a political assistant--

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You have the right to—

[English]

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: --you are entitled to enter the public service as a priority, based on the minister's staff priority.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: However, you still must qualify—

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: —for the position.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I presume that you had to take an exam and be interviewed before you were told that you were qualified to hold a position of such a classification and such a level within the public service.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I don't remember all of the details. I took some steps within the public service and I was told that there was a position opening within the CCSB. The necessary steps were taken.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To your recollection, you did not have to take a written or oral exam?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You were not interviewed before the Canadian or federal Public Service Commission told you that you were fully capable of holding a position with such a classification?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I had—

[English]

    The Chair: My apologies, Madam Jennings. What I was going to ask is in relationship to the auditor's report.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Ms. Roy said that as a member—

[English]

    The Chair: No, it was the credentials of the witnesses.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but you're asking if it's relevant. If you want me to explain the relevance of my question, I would like you to suspend my speaking time. Is it paused?

[English]

    The Chair: It's stopped, yes.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. All the witnesses who have appeared before us have given us their curriculum vitae. Our witness today said she was part of the exempt staff when she joined the public service. Anyone familiar with the Public Service Employment Act knows that individuals must go through a classification process before they can be told they are eligible for a particular position. From what Ms. Roy told us, she does not seem to have gone through any assessment before being found qualified for the position that was vacant. I just want to clarify that.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Steps were taken with the Public Service Commission. I applied and my curriculum vitae was sent in. There was a position to fill in the CCSB. Normally, when people apply for a public service position, they can be given priority after three years. In such cases, there is no official competition, to my knowledge.

º  (1645)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I do not want to dwell on this. I have been in politics for seven years and I know other exempt staff who joined the public service. Whether or not they were given priority, they had to be assessed before the commission could tell them that they qualified for a position at a particular level. That is all I wanted to know. You gave us the classification.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I imagine that all of the necessary procedures were followed, otherwise, I would not have qualified for the position.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You did not have an interview?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I did not have...

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm going to move on to something else.

[English]

    The Chair: Would you like us to find out what the standard procedures are?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

    The Chair: All right, we'll check that out.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You had dealings with Ms. Tremblay, but not with Mr. Guité when you worked in the minister's office. I imagine that after joining the public service in a position in the communications field, you had some dealings with Ms. Tremblay.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes, she was my colleague.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Guité was your superior. What about Mario Parent?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Mario Parent had already left the organization before I arrived.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Did you ever attend any of the events sponsored by the federal government either when you worked in the minister's office or when you were a public servant working in the sponsorship program?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: A few times, yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Which events were they?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: When I was a public servant, I went to the Molson Indy in Vancouver and Toronto. There were some other events, but very few.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On those occasions, your costs were covered by your employer, the federal government.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I did not attend... Yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To your knowledge, did Ms. Huguette Tremblay, Mr. Guité and other employees attend events the federal government had sponsored?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Did they attend these events regularly? Once a month?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That depended on the events being sponsored.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Such as the Grand Prix in Montreal.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I never went to the Grand Prix myself.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To your knowledge, did Mr. Guité, Ms. Tremblay and Mr. Tremblay, following his arrival, also attend?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: To your knowledge, were all travel expenses covered by the employer?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes, because we often went on site to make sure that there was visibility, as had been negotiated... I believe that in the case of certain very high-value sponsorship cases, a representative had to be present to ensure visibility, to make sure that the firm had delivered the product.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The firm was already paid.

    When you entered the public service, did you take a course on the Treasury Board policies with respect to the selection of ad and communication firms, and with respect to procurement and contract negotiation? I'm talking about Treasury Board policy on advertising, communications, surveys, etc. Did somebody give you a copy of the policy and tell you that you needed to be familiar with this policy in order to do your job properly?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So you never saw the policy?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: The policy? I was informed of the policy as I was becoming familiar with the development of the program. If there were any specific policies to respect, I was made aware of these policies.

º  (1650)  

[English]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Merci.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    To follow up on Madam Jennings' question, when you said you were informed of the policy, was that verbally, or were you given the contracting policy in writing?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Honestly, I don't remember.

    The Chair: All right.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, eight minutes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

    Thank you again, Madame Roy. As some of my colleagues have already said, we really appreciate your appearance here today and your rather refreshing, straightforward approach to our questioning.

    As you can see, we're very interested in meetings between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano, because we're trying to get at the root of this maladministration as identified not only by the Auditor General, but by other audits. We've had contradictions. Mr. Gagliano said he only met with Mr. Guité, at the most, three or four times a year, and other witnesses, including you, have reported a more regular meeting between the two. So let me ask a few more questions on the meetings.

    Did Mr. Guité call and ask for those meetings? How were they initiated?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There was a scheduling assistant in the minister's office.

    As to who called to schedule the meeting, honestly, I don't remember whether it was done through Mr. Tremblay or through the scheduling assistant. I think it was done through both.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are you able to tell whether it happened on the initiation of Mr. Guité and/or Mr. Tremblay, or as a result of the minister initiating the request for a meeting?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think it was both.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Both ways, okay.

    Were you ever present during those meetings?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I was never present at meetings with Monsieur Tremblay and Monsieur Guité, or Monsieur Tremblay and Monsieur Guité and the minister.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

    A few of my colleagues have already asked about what happened if the decision was made and then the minister made a different decision. Presumably, if the staff recommended that something be rejected, the minister would say “No, I want it approved”. Did it ever happen the other way, where staff would say yes to something and the minister would say no? Do you recall that ever happening?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: That a project would be approved and the minister would disagree? I don't remember. It's possible.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The reason I'm asking is because we're trying to figure out who was really calling the shots. Do you have any sense of that?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: From my implication, for the sponsorship requests that I would receive, I would discuss them either with the chief of staff or the minister. They would either suggest that these projects be forwarded to CCSB and a recommendation be made, or that certain files be discussed with Mr. Guité, and in other cases, to see if a particular file could be approved.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You don't recall any time in the office, then, when one side or the other would blow a gasket because they didn't get their way?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think it was more on a case-by-case basis. Discussions were made over the files, a decision at the end was made, and that's it.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Obviously, you worked with Mr. Tremblay for a considerable period of time. You obviously have some respect for him. We're not able, probably, to talk with him because he's on sick leave. Can you help us understand, when he took over from Mr. Guité and he tried to put in place a new way of doing things, did you sense that he was under a lot of pressure and in a stressful situation? Did you notice anything different about him? How was that whole situation?

º  (1655)  

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: At the end, it was his decision to decide how he wanted to manage the program. The minister's office had a strong interest in the way the program was being managed. Those are things Mr. Tremblay had to deal with.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How did he deal with them? Did he express frustration, anger, despair, acceptance? Did you notice anything in terms of how he handled that involvement by the minister?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I know that you're not getting his testimony, but I think it's up to him to come and tell you how he felt in that position.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: He was only there for two years. Do you know of any reason why he left in 2001? I know he got a job at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but he was a relatively short time in that position. Was he fed up? Did he decide to get out? Was he trying to clean up, and he had some pressure?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think this is a question you should ask him.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are there other people we haven't mentioned who we should be asking you about in terms of regular meetings between the minister or Mr. Guité or Mr. Tremblay and individuals involved on the sponsorship file? Is there anyone else you can think of we forgot to ask you about who would be relevant to this whole case?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think you've asked a lot of questions at this point. I don't think so.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are there other people in the group you used to work with who we should talk to? You know we've spoken with Huguette Tremblay. And I said to you earlier today that your old group was at times getting blamed for this whole affair--it's that rogue element that caused it to happen--and we're very skeptical of that kind of conclusion.

    So given that, first of all, would you be upset if you and your colleagues were targeted as the problem in terms of this affair, and therefore should we actually talk to some more colleagues of yours or former colleagues? How do you suggest we deal with that sort of thinking or that hypothesis?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: At this point, I think it's really the committee's decision to decide who else in terms of witnesses they want to bring in. You've asked to meet some of the agencies and you've met people from the auditors. I think that's really the committee's decision.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How would you feel if this were left on the shoulders of staff, and you, the whole group, including the former directors, were blamed for this affair? I know it's hypothetical, but--

    The Chair: We're getting into the area of hypothesis here in asking her to give an opinion on what other people might believe and so on.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right. I'll change course here. I apologize. I don't want to put you in an awkward spot.

    Were you aware of other ministers' staff--not ministers, but the staff of other ministers--who called regarding the sponsorship program during your time in the minister's office and/or your time in CCSB?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: There were different people calling. I guess it was really based on the files I was getting. To come back and say this or that one called, it's hard for me to remember at this point.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

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

    I wasn't sure in the testimony today if Ms. Roy mentioned where she worked before she worked with Mr. Gagliano.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: She mentioned that she worked with a member of Parliament.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay. Thank you.

    The Chair: The witness has been extremely good and patient to be here all day, and I think I'll ask a few questions myself. We have some motions to deal with, so I'll ask a few questions, then we'll excuse the witness.

    When you were working in the minister's office, Mr. Gagliano's office, approximately how many people worked in that office?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Based on the requirements, you're entitled to 10 or 12 political assistants and a certain number of public servants, which is, I guess, the norm for a cabinet minister. I'm not sure exactly of the numbers, but approximately.... I don't know if it has changed now under the new Prime Minister.

    The Chair: I mean when you were there.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: When I was there, there were approximately twenty people.

    The Chair: How much of your time was devoted to the sponsorship files? All of it? Half of it?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: No. As I mentioned to you earlier, I had other functions besides those. So I don't know. I don't really want to speculate on that.

    The Chair: What other responsibilities did you have within the minister's office?

    As I mentioned in my statement, I looked after the management of the minister's budget. I was involved in the coordination of various appointments. There were a variety of files I would look after on behalf of the chief of staff, which were all files related to his portfolio. There was the ATIP request. So there were other files I was involved in.

    The Chair: Would you say that working on the sponsorship file was a major part of your job, an extra that you did as an aside to your job, or a significant portion of your job?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was a good part of my job, but how much time I devoted to it, I don't know.

    The Chair: When you moved over to CCSB, you were supervising a staff of five and you were reviewing the post-mortem documents that were submitted at the end of each program. Was a post-mortem document supplied for every sponsorship file?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I may not have seen all of the final reports, but it was a requirement to have it. At the end of the day, if the agency did not submit a report, it wasn't paid. You may have been dealing with a specific fiscal year, and if the post-mortem had not come in by March 31 for a specific event, the agency was not paid.

    The Chair: Did all of these post-mortem files come through your department, or were some sponsorship files handled in another way and not through your department?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: To my knowledge, it had to come through CCSB.

    The Chair: Did Mr. Guité have several files that he processed on his own and you handled the rest, or were there two streams within your office?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It was a group and--

    The Chair: So there was only one stream.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: To my knowledge, yes.

    The Chair: Did you have a checklist in your office that indicated you had to have a contract, an invoice, a post-mortem document, a business plan, all these types of things, so that you could determine whether or not the file contained all the appropriate information?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: We had a database. Although we were a small team, everyone had a role to play in the file. Different things were put into the database at different levels. If a date wasn't specified for the visibility, that would indicate it wasn't received.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: So the program was primarily run from the database, which was verbal input, rather than documentation contained in each particular file.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: In terms of decision-making.

    The Chair: Cheques from the Government of Canada are issued from a central office, I believe. I'm not really up on how cheques are issued in the federal government. How were cheques issued in the federal government? Was it from your office or from a central department?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: They were issued by a central department, Public Works.

    The Chair: So you had to send them a cheque requisition or a cheque authorization.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: A requisition or invoice would be sent to our finance section, and they would process it in order to have a payment made.

    The Chair: Did that requisition certify that all other documentation was on the file?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: The people who signed under section 34, I believe it was, did so based on certain requirements.

    The Chair: So the requirements were set out: these requirements have been achieved and therefore it is appropriate to issue the cheque.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Yes.

    The Chair: Did you feel in all cases that these certifications were appropriate?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I did not sign any contracts or invoices.

    The Chair: No, but even if you didn't sign, did you feel that the people who were signing were making a true statement when they signed?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: It's hard for me to say.

    The Chair: Do you know who was signing these?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Monsieur Guité and then Monsieur Tremblay.

    The Chair: What was the atmosphere in your office? Was it a collegial atmosphere--you were working hard providing services to Canadians; or was it a more sinister type of attitude--perhaps we're not doing things right, and I hope we don't get caught? How would you categorize the atmosphere in the office?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: I think it was collegial, definitely. It was a challenge. I must say it was a challenge because of the increases in the sponsorship requests, there were numerous ATIP requests, and then we were living the audit. So definitely it was a challenge for this small team to deliver.

    The Chair: Did you think at any time there was any illegal activity going on?

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Not that I was aware of.

    The Chair: Ms. Roy, I want to thank you on behalf of all the committee and the Parliament of Canada for coming along this afternoon.

    Mr. Lastewka, did you have something to say?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): It was on the list for asking questions. I believe we have twenty minutes' worth of business.

    She did a good job.

    The Chair: She has done a good job. She's been here all day.

    I did say I was going to ask a few questions, because I'd have to start another round. We have Mr. MacKay, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Desrochers, and then Mr. Tonks. So if we start another round, we start another round. I thought we'd just stop at this point in time.

    We would like to thank you again on behalf of the public accounts committee and the Parliament of Canada for coming forward and being forthright and candid in your answers. We are going to be discussing, in a few minutes, a report that hopefully will cause the government to pay for your legal fees.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: If I may comment on that, when I submitted my request yesterday to Public Works, I was informed that most likely Public Works would be paying for legal fees. I think it's a normal process. They agree to pay based on certain conditions, and they will most likely send me a letter. At this point in time, because I made the request yesterday, I have not received official confirmation, but I'm pretty sure it will be done.

    The Chair: We will follow through with our support. We'll give them a little push.

    Again, we want to thank you very much, and we'll escort you from the room.

    Ms. Isabelle Roy: Thank you.

    The Chair: Of course, we have other business, so don't all run away. We need to keep quorum; we have motions to pass, or defeat, defer, or whatever--to deal with.

    Does everybody have a copy of the fifth report? Does anybody have any questions on the fifth report? Are you ready to call the question on the fifth report?

    An hon. member: What's the question?

    The Chair: All those in favour of adopting the fifth report?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Opposed, if any?

    That motion is carried.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Now for the standard ones: that notwithstanding Standing Order 109, the committee request a response to this report as soon as possible. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: And that the clerks be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary--if we find any--without changing the substance of the report. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Do you have something to say, Mr. Jordan?

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I just wondered if we shouldn't mention the fact that Ms. Roy seems to be caught in this in-between situation.

    The Chair: I'll do the motions first, and then we'll talk about that.

    The next motion is that the chairman be instructed to present the report to the House at the earliest opportunity.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Dealing with your issue, Mr. Jordan, I think it's just a case of the paperwork. She made the request yesterday; they just haven't had time to get back to her. But she expected that was going to be appropriate.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm sure we could accept the oral confirmation from Public Works.

    The Chair: Now we have notices of motion.

    Mr. MacKay, on Tuesday, April 13, moved that in relation to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Auditor General'sreport, this committee request the daytimer and/or agenda book for Mr. André Ouelletduring his tenure at Canada Post, which was from January 1996 to February 24, 2003.

    Mr. MacKay, speak to your motion.

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

    I would say that in relation to the testimony of Mr. Ouellet, it would be worth our while to look at these daytimers and agenda books, if they're available, to confirm certain evidence that was presented before this committee and in particular certain meetings that may or may not have taken place.

    This is the relevant time. It was his tenure at Canada Post. I would suggest that this would be useful information for the examination of this committee for both current and future witnesses.

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I don't have any real problem with the motion as long as it's made clear that we're talking about chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report. I read these chapters, as has everyone else, I think, in this committee room.

    Canada Post is a very minor player. They are mentioned twice in the Auditor General's report. They're mentioned with respect to the stamp issue. They're mentioned with respect to the Maurice Richard series, although that is kind of dicey, but they were certainly mentioned.

    Certainly I think it's clear that they would be under an obligation to present all daytimers and agenda books, with respect to any meetings and any consultations that were in these books, related to the auditor's report. I think that's understood.

    The Chair: I think your point is very valid. We must always be careful that we don't get documents that are not relevant to the proceedings. Therefore, they should be delivered to the law clerks.

    They'd say that these people have nothing to do with it. If the law clerks happen to ask “who is this guy?” and they say that he either was or wasn't relevant, then they will make a decision. So we will only see things that pertain to chapters 3, 4, and 5.

    I think that's a filter we've been talking about for some number of weeks. It's not appropriate for us to delve into all the business of the chairmen and CEOs.

    Do you agree with that, Mr. MacKay?

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Absolutely. Yes, that's fine.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Thibault.

    Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): I think much the same thing, but I think I have to get it on the record to make sure that I've said it and that you understand it.

    I agree with the crux of what Mr. MacKay is presenting, but I do want the information that we receive from the daytimers to be relative to chapters 3, 4, and 5. I might reword the way the motion is written.

    The Chair: You're saying exactly the same thing. I've said that the documents will be delivered to the law clerks. They say that these names are irrelevant. The law clerk says “fine, get them out of there”, and we only see what is relevant.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, who decides what's relevant and what isn't relevant?

    The Chair: Canada Post decides what's relevant, in conjunction with the law clerk. We will never see what the law clerk says is not relevant. If he says it's not relevant, I won't even be able to check it, because it's solicitor-client privilege.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, on that point, some, perhaps all, members of the committee would be aware that there was a Quebec court decision that was handed down in relation to the information commissioner for a similar request that was made some time ago—as Mr. Jordan would no doubt be aware—for the Prime Minister's agenda books, in relation to a certain period in time that involved the Business Development Bank and loans to the Prime Minister's riding. This motion is very much in keeping with that. As you've said, it will be vetted prior to that information being brought to the committee.

    The Chair: Are we agreed?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: I will read motion two:

That in relation to Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the November 2003 Auditor General's Report, this Committee requests all correspondence relating to sponsorship and advertising or marketing ventures of Mr. André Ouellet during his tenure at Canada Post.

    Mr. MacKay, are you speaking to your motion?

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I believe the motion is very straightforward. It's calling for, again, specific information, the correspondence relating only to sponsorship and advertising or marketing ventures. Those were the words and the description used in his own testimony.

    Again, I would submit that this has direct bearing on his evidence and the examination of issues related to the sponsorship program.

    The Chair: First, on a point of clarification--I'm like Mr. Mills, I need clarification here--are you suggesting by this motion that Mr. André Ouellet had personal sponsorship and advertising or marketing ventures? Because that's the way I read your motion.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm saying “correspondence relating to”.

    The Chair: We're going to hear from Mr. Murphy.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: If I may, I agree with the point you just brought up, Mr. Chairman.

    Subject to the caveats I mentioned before, I don't really have a problem with this motion except for how it's worded. I would suggest to Mr. MacKay that it read, “request all correspondence of Mr. André Ouellet relating to sponsorship and advertising marketing ventures of Canada Post”. The way it reads now, you could interpret it as saying that Mr. André Ouellet--

    The Chair: Had a sideline business.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Had a sideline business, yes. So perhaps we could just reword it.

    The clerks may be able to do a better job than I did. Perhaps it could read, “correspondence of Mr. André Ouellet” instead.

    I think that was your concern, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I also am concerned about the way it's written. I would propose that, starting at the second line, it should read:

Report, this Committee requests all correspondence of Canada Post addressed to or by Mr. André Ouellet during his mandate from January 1996 to February 24, 2003, relating to sponsorship and advertising or marketing ventures of Canada Post.

    The Chair: Are you in agreement, Mr. MacKay?

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, by all means.

    An hon. member: That's a great improvement.

    The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Perhaps another day, maybe tomorrow, I will bring up an issue regarding the ex gratia payments we deal with every year. We still have to continue on with the business of the public accounts committee. I'm advised that this motion is not well drafted, so I will check it over for tomorrow.

    As you know, regarding the merchant navy veterans, the heating fuel rebates, and payments to resolve claims to Indian school systems and so on, we are giving an annual waiver to the Treasury Board to not publish the names in the Public Accounts of Canada but just put in the number of claims and the amount paid. But I'll get this redrafted. It's a fairly straightforward motion that we do on an annual basis. I don't believe in giving a perpetual waiver. We may change our minds one time, and it's up to the committee at the time.

    There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned.