PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, April 23, 2004

¿

0910

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval)

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

¿

0915

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0920

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

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

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

¿

0925

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

¿

0930

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0935

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0940

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer)

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0945

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

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

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0950

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

¿

0955

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC)

À

1000

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

À

1005

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

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

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

À

1010

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

À

1015

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Chair

À

1020

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

À

1025

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

À

1030

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

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

À

1035

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. Charles Guité

M. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

À

1040

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

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

À

1045

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

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

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

À

1050

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

À

1055

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Á

1100

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Á

1105

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Á

1110

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Charles Guité

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

Mr. Charles Guité

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Mr. Dennis Mills

Â

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

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

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Hon. Walt Lastewka

Mr. John Williams

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Mr. Vic Toews

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Mr. Vic Toews

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

Mr. Dennis Mills

Â

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings)

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Â

1235

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Maziade (Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Maziade

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Maziade

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Maziade

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Â

1250

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

·

1300

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie)

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 032

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Friday, April 23, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[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.

    The witness today is, as an individual, Mr. Charles Guité.

    I've had a notice of a point of privilege from Madam Jennings, but before we go there, there are just a couple of points.

    I think there is consensus among members that we have Mr. Guité here until 11:15. At that time, of course, we are going to break until 12:15 for question period. That leaves only 45 minutes, and in 45 minutes of time we will deal with the motions on the table that need to be dealt with. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, that's agreed then.

    If something else comes along, I will raise it. I thought there was something else on my mind.

    Madam Jennings, on a point of privilege.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I believe that my rights as a parliamentarian, as well as those of my colleagues sitting here today, those of the Liberal Party, of the Liberal government and of the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Paul Martin, were breached on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, and on Thursday, April 1, 2004, in this committee by certain committee members who are in attendance today: Mr. Kenney, Mr. Toews, Mr. MacKay, Ms. Ablonczy, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Desrochers and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    A motion that I had tabled with the committee to remove the publication ban on the testimony given by Mr. Guité in 2002 and to amend the subpoena ordering him to appear on April 1, 2004 so that he could instead appear on Thursday, April 22, 2004 and Friday, April 23, 2004, was discussed at great length by all committee members, during all of Wednesday afternoon and during nearly all of Thursday morning. At that time, several allegations were made about me, my colleagues and the Right Honourable Paul Martin. It was said that the purpose of this motion was odious, that the Prime Minister and the Liberal members of this committee had no intentions of having Mr. Guité appear before this committee so that he could testify in person, and that we intended to use his in camera testimony in order to immediately call an election. Mr. Toews even said that he was prophetic. He maintained that the only reason for removing the ban was to make the in camera testimony of Mr. Guité public knowledge so that the Prime Minister would be able to immediately call an election.

    Mr. Chairman, at that time, the only thing that I said, and I said it at the end, before the vote, was that they were mistaken, that the allegations that they had made with respect to me, my colleagues and the Prime Minister were odious, if not hateful, and that I expected them to apologize publicly on the day that Mr. Guité appeared before us in person. They were wrong, and I would like to hear an apology from each of them: Mr. Kenney, Mr. Toews, Mr. MacKay, Ms. Ablonczy, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Desrochers and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now I'll turn to this side. There seems to be some response.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Chair, basically, I think the scenario was very clear. They were going to have that evidence and then call the election.

    What I would like to see is the cabinet discussions regarding an election date, from the day that I said that until now, because now she's making accusations that I can't verify unless I have access to the cabinet document.

    So if she brings forward the cabinet documents that discuss when the election is going to be called and what impact my statement had on changing the election date, I will be more than happy to consider an apology, but I want to see the cabinet documents.

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

    I have Mr. Kenney and Mr. Gauthier.

    Order, please.

    Mr. Gauthier.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Chairman, you have all of the requisite grounds for immediately ruling on this point of privilege, which really isn't one. Furthermore, I would like to point out that, in politics, we hear divergent opinions on a daily basis. Thank you. You have all that you need to make a decision.

[English]

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Just on a point of order, we have an important witness, and I think we should get on with it. Madam Jennings should get more sleep.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If there are no other opposition members who wish to speak, I would like to make some brief concluding remarks. Mr. Kenney... Mr. Chairman, I am entitled to make closing remarks.

¿  (0915)  

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings, would you just wait until you're recognized, please?

    Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You are really small-minded, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I have the courage to apologize publicly, on national television, for saying that Mr. MacKay, Mr. Toews, Ms. Ablonczy and Mr. Kenney were members of the Conservative-Alliance Party, I find it truly pitiful that they are not prepared to apologize for making hateful accusations with respect to me.

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, you are out of order.

    Thank you.

    You had an opportunity to speak to your point of privilege. It has been responded to, and I will just rule on two things.

    One, you've had ample opportunity for several weeks to bring this motion forward, and as you know, points of privilege have to be brought forward at the earliest opportunity. On that basis, I do not recognize that you have brought it forward on a timely basis.

    Secondly, while you talk about what Mr. Toews has raised, it's strictly a matter of debate; therefore, it is not a point of privilege, and I rule so.

    Moving on, we are going to get back to our witnesses, now that we have settled that issue.

    Mr. Kenney, you have eight minutes.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for coming back, Mr. Guité.

    Mr. Guité, yesterday morning you said there had been no political interference from ministers or the PMO in the administration of the sponsorship program during your management of it. Later in the afternoon you indicated that in fact there had been political interference in at least one instance with respect to the call or calls that you had received or meetings you may have had with Terrie O'Leary, chief of staff to then finance minister Martin. I wonder if you could clarify how often you believe you were contacted by Madam O'Leary to discuss the sponsorship program or other matters related to it.

    Mr. Charles Guité (As Individual): Are you talking about—

    The Chair: One moment.

    Before we get into that, remember, we're dealing with chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report dealing with the sponsorship program, APORS, and public opinion research and advertising activities, and we have to ensure that all questions and so on are relevant to these particular investigations.

    Mr. Kenney, do you feel that this is--

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I believe my question is entirely relevant, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Very good.

    Mr. Guité.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think you're mixing the two issues here. Mr. Martin's office, when he was Minister of Finance, never interfered in the sponsorship program. What I said yesterday when we were discussing that issue was that it was about advertising and not sponsorship. So there's quite a bit of difference here.

    The input that was supplied to me, or rather, the interference that I referred to yesterday, had to do with an advertising agency, if I remember correctly, from the memo that I gave you yesterday, and I think in that same memo they talked about research and public relations. That incident, for a better term, had nothing to do with the sponsorship program, but with advertising, which I think is relevant to this discussion, because we're talking about sponsorship, advertising, and research.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: My question, sir, was how often Madam O'Leary contacted you—

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think I said yesterday two or three times she had contacted me by phone. I met with her at the minister's office--I think they were somewhere in the Bell tower--a couple of times.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: You met with Madam O'Leary at the finance minister's office.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I met with Madam O'Leary on a couple of occasions at her office.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Were there others present at those meetings?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, not that I can recall.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I raise this because I believe a spokesman for Mr. Martin last night denied that anybody from the finance minister's office ever contacted you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, that's incorrect. I definitely met Madam O'Leary at the office--

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Was it at her initiative and request?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think it was after a discussion we had on the phone, so I said let's meet about this issue. It could have been her who said let's meet, but I can't say who initiated the meeting.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: What was she trying to achieve in these meetings and discussions?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's the same comment as yesterday. She was telling me that they would prefer to have certain firms and to add other firms to a list. And the memo I circulated yesterday is very clear. As I think I commented earlier, as far as I was concerned at that time, it was interference with the process.

¿  (0920)  

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Was this kind of pressure from Minister Martin's office unique? Was it commonplace? Did you receive similar pressure from other offices?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The only other incident that I can remember was when Mr. Goodale, who was Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, if I recall, wrote a letter to Mr. Dingwall to do a sole source to Earnscliffe. And obviously the next move when I had that letter was they called me and said, “Can we do that?” I said, “The policy said that you can delegate authority to any minister, but if you do that, you're opening up a can of worms. Every minister is going to want the delegation.”

    Mr. Jason Kenney: In fact we have a copy of that letter, Mr. Chair, which we'd be happy to share with the committee.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes. I think it became quite a hot issue between the two ministers, but at the end of the day my advice to the minister of the day, who was Mr. Dingwall, was “Do not give that authority”.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: You were also asked to provide advice, I believe, to Warren Kinsella, the executive assistant to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, in the summer of 1995. I have here a confidential memorandum that you wrote to him on July 28 of that year in which you said, speaking of the attempt by Finance Minister Martin's office to get Earnscliffe added to the list, that these contracts were issued “without the knowledge of my sector”, issued without the knowledge of Public Works--“without the knowledge of my sector”--notwithstanding the fact that the regulations required Public Works to approve or at least be knowledgeable of these contracts.

    Mr. Charles Guité: We're talking here of something that happened ten years ago. I would have to see the documentation in order to be able to properly comment on it. Based on Mr. MacKay's comment yesterday, where I was led down the garden path, if you're going to refer to a letter or to a document, before I can comment on it I want to see it.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Sure, we'd be happy to furnish a copy of this to you. I'll just quote--

    The Chair: Mr. Kenney, give copies to the clerk and table them here.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, absolutely.

    The Chair: Do you have additional copies at this point in time?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Right here.

    The Chair: Let's give one to Mr. Guité and circulate the rest. Are they in two languages or one?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Can we hold the clock?

    It is a government document, I think only in English.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I don't want to waste time here, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is important that I see the documents.

    The Chair: Of course, yes. The letter is coming right now.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Is a copy of Mr. Kinsella's letter coming?

    When I replied to Mr. Kinsella, I'd like to see what his questions were.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I don't believe I have that. I have a copy of the letter you referred to from Mr. Goodale and the response by Mr. Dingwall, but I don't have Mr. Kinsella's letter to you.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Another one down the garden path.

    The Chair: Order, order.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Sorry I'm not up to your crack research, Mr. Walt.

    The Chair: Can we just stop the banter back and forth, please?

¿  (0925)  

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I believe I found the memo dated July 24, 1995, from Kinsella to Guité.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Kenney, are you back?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: If Mr.--

    The Chair: Just a second here.

    Mr. Guité, are you ready to respond to these?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes, I think I can address the issue. I would really like to see--

    The Chair: Before you address the issue, let me say that the clerk just handed me some things. Copies are being made and will be distributed at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Kenney has a copy and Mr. Guité has a copy of a memo to Chuck Guité, Director, Advertising and Public Opinion Research Branch. It doesn't say who it's from. It's dated July 24, 1995, with copies to Mr. Quail, Mr. Stobbe, Mr. Neville, and Mr. Silverman.

    There is a memo to Warren Kinsella, executive assistant, Office of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, from Director General, Advertising and Public Opinion Research Branch, dated July 28, 1995. That is signed by Mr. Guité, with copies to Mr. Quail, Mr. Stobbe, Mr. Silverman.

    There's a letter to the Right Honourable David Dingwall from Mr. Ralph Goodale as Minister of Agriculture, and a letter to the Right Honourable David C. Dingwall from Mr. Ralph Goodale on Minister of Agriculture letterhead, so he would have been Minister of Agriculture at that time. The date was March 27, 1995.

    There's another letter dated July 25, 1995, addressed to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, from Mr. David Dingwall. This appears to be some kind of background documentation--qualitative research and the taxation of child support payments, January to March 1995.

    Are these the documents you're talking about, Mr. Kenney?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: These are the documents.

    The Chair: Do you have these documents, Mr. Guité?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The two documents I have now are the incoming letter from Kinsella to me and my reply going back to Kinsella.

    The only other comment I want to make here is this. I say in here, “POR indicated to the client that the 'scope of work' was vague and written in a way that favoured the incumbent (see Appendix A...)”. I would assume that is the scope of work. “Note to file, prepared by a member of my staff). Also, attached (Appendix B) is the results of the OBS process and as you can see...”. I would assume that we put out an OBS, open bidding service. It goes on to say, “17 firms requested the tender documents but only one bid was submitted, which was the Earnscliffe Strategy Group.” Obviously, at that time--and I'm talking here about July 28, 1995, quite a while ago--if you put out a tender--and the scope of work would have been prepared by the department, not by my group--and you have one bidder replying, I think the rest of the industry out there got the message: we know where it's going to go, so let's not waste our time bidding.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Is that why you said in the third-last paragraph of the memo, that if the situation is escalated,“it could become embarrassing to the government and certainly our Minister”?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes, I agree with that.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: All right.

    Essentially, this was, again, unique, where you had a minister's office trying to make exceptions to the normal routine for approving public opinion research contracts.

    Mr. Charles Guité: What minister are you talking about here?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Martin.

¿  (0930)  

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Except for Goodale, and we have that--

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's a totally different issue.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Guité, on a related question, this committee has obtained documents from Allan Cutler, as you know, one of which is a series of documents related to Earnscliffe contracts. I have here a confidential memorandum signed by you on August 12, 1995. I'd be happy to furnish copies. This is about a $240,000 public opinion research contract for Earnscliffe. There's a note here from Mr. Cutler, and he says, in his handwriting, “This contract was designated POR,” public opinion research, “even though communications strategy and policy advice was the purpose. The procurement strategy was not recommended, as competition would not be fair--one bidder, Earnscliffe.” That seems to refer to the same contract. Is that your recollection?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I would assume so, but I'd have to see the file and the contract file. What was the date of that?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: That was in August 1995.

    Mr. Charles Guité: This was July 28.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: So Mr. Martin's office—

    The Chair: Mr. Kenney, I'm sorry, but we have run out of time.

    Monsieur Gauthier, for eight minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Guité, your comments were reported in an article published in the Globe and Mail on October 12, 2002. You explained very clearly how it was possible to rig the tender process. In a nutshell, you said that it was all about organizing a competition so that the selected government agency could be compared to weaker agencies. And here I quote you: “I am a boating fan. If I put a boat with a 90-horsepower motor beside three other boats with a 50-horsepower motor, which one will be first at the finish line?”

    That is what you said. Do you feel, Mr. Guité, that this illustration of how to rig the tender process leads people to think that they got good value for their money when you were in charge of the contract awarding process, as you were with the Sponsorship Program? Do you not feel that this explanation of how to do business could lead one to think that this approach was, at the very least, questionable?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I have a pretty good recollection of the reporter I was speaking to at that time, during the Conservative years. Yesterday I indicated very clearly—twice, I believe—that from 1989, when I was given this position, until the end of Mr. Mulroney's mandate, my organization was truly led by politicians. I had two people who worked on advertising and one person who did opinion research. Clearly these were the people, namely the political appointees in my group, who established what we refer to as the short list. There was a list of companies, that I described yesterday, and they would choose five or six firms from this list. They usually chose six names. It is clear that it wouldn't take much to know, as I told this reporter, who was going to win if I were to invite a very big company as well as five other weaker companies to prepare a bid.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: I would like especially to know whether this technique of organizing tenders is a technique that is widespread or was widespread in...

    Mr. Charles Guité: When the Conservatives were in power, it always worked like that. As I said yesterday, when the Liberals came into power, they removed the political appointees who were in my group—I believe I stated that this was so in my presentation yesterday morning—and they made the system fully competitive. At that time, I no longer had a choice. My organization had to put all of the invitations to tender on the MERX. Before MERX, there was the OBS, the open bidding system.

¿  (0935)  

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: All right. Mr. Guité, I would like you in particular to clarify the role of one individual. This individual was mentioned by Ms. Huguette Tremblay, I believe, in various newspaper articles as a result of questions. I am referring to the role of Minister Denis Coderre, who, it would appear, intervened to promote projects where... You were part of management. Could you explain Denis Coderre's level of involvement?

    Mr. Charles Guité: If I recall correctly, Denis Coderre was not there when I was with the federal government. When did Mr. Coderre become a minister?

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Oh, well...

    Mr. Charles Guité: At any rate, to answer your question, Mr. Gauthier, I can tell you that I do not know Mr. Coderre and I have never spoken with Mr. Coderre. If I recall correctly, he was not there when I was.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Okay. He became Secretary of State after, perhaps. You left in 1999?

    Mr. Charles Guité: In August of 1999. I do not know Mr. Coderre at all.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: All right. Yesterday, when discussing the time when the Sponsorship Program was being established, you said—and correct me if I'm wrong—that an initial meeting had been held where you had set out your strategy and where you had decided to go to war; those where more or less your words. You said that you were an executive general, and that you executed the plan. You said that there had been a meeting attended by all sorts of people, ministers, and so forth.

    Can you tell us who attended that meeting and when it took place?

    Mr. Charles Guité: There were no ministers present at the meeting I referred to yesterday. I was talking about a meeting attended by people from my organization, from the federal-provincial relations office—one of my employees had been seconded to the federal-provincial relations office—and employees of the Privy Council Office, PCO. There were never any ministers sitting around a table where decisions were made to hire agencies or where we defined the process for hiring agencies. I'm sure that ministers did take part in some discussions—in which I did not take part—on the strategy that should be adopted for the referendum. I'm sure there were some. At the time, in 1995, I worked in close cooperation with the Privy Council Office and the federal-provincial relations office. However, there were only public servants, and not politicians, at the meetings that dealt with a strategy to hire agencies, for example.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: I'd like to clarify one thing. On many occasions during your in camera testimony, I think, and even here, it seems to me that you said that one morning you decided that you were at war against the separatists and that you wanted to save the country. However, I don't suppose that you got up one morning and while shaving decided that you, Charles Guité, were going to wage war against separatists. I'd like you to tell us more specifically how this unfolded, and who told you one day that a specific political operation was being undertaken in this context.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I don't think that this was decided on any given morning. It was discussed over a period of several weeks; there were many discussions and many meetings. The specific strategy, what we do, when, how and what is done, is not something Chuck Guité decided, that's for sure.

    Let's take the example of the notorious outdoor signs, when we had rented all the billboards, etc. It's not Chuck Guité himself who decided to do that. That was discussed with many people and when a decision was made to go down that path, naturally I'm the one who called the companies that have these outdoor billboards in order to rent them all.

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: What I'd like to understand particularly, I imagine...

[English]

    The Chair: Thirty seconds.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Gauthier: Okay.

    I imagine that this was discussed at a level other than yours, but at some point someone became a spokesperson for the group. Do you know who was discussing this and who was the spokesperson who transmitted the information to you?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. I think that this was done during group discussions. As I said earlier, in that group there was me, of course, Andrée LaRose, who had been seconded by my team to the Privy Council, Privy Council employees—I think I named two yesterday—and there were other people whose names I'm sure I could find. They were public servants at more or less the same level as me at the time. I'm sorry, perhaps not, after all: they may have been a little higher up than me in the hierarchy. I know that there was Howard Balloch, who in those days looked after intergovernmental affairs at the Privy Council Office. I think he was at the deputy minister level.

¿  (0940)  

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

    Mr. Proulx, you have eight minutes.

[English]

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

[Translation]

    Good morning, Mr. Guité. Good morning, Mr. Edelson.

    Mr. Guité, I'd like us to backtrack a bit and discuss certain contracts that had been awarded to Groupaction. If memory serves me and if I've understood this file correctly, you'd given an initial contract to Groupaction to advise you on various events that might take place during the summer in Quebec, in order to help you decide in which celebrations the Government of Canada should participate. You've told us during previous testimony—I think that it was in 2002—that a large part of that contract was a verbal agreement. Is that true?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: It has been determined—and the Auditor General discussed this as did the media—that Groupaction gave you a report in 8.5 x 14 format that included a list of events. I don't remember if it contained 12, 24 or 36 pages, but that's not important. Apart from that document, was the rest of that contract agreed upon verbally?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Most of it dealt with the advice that I received from the agency. Here you have to be careful, because there were three reports. For the first report they undertook to prepare for my office, if I remember correctly, there was initially a $250,000 contract and midway, after discussions with the agency, we doubled the amount of the contract to about $500,000. Now with regard to the preparation of the first report, I don't remember, Mr. Proulx, but I'm sure that that report was longer than 26 pages.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: In any case, I'm saying this...

    Mr. Charles Guité: And the agency had to go to some lengths to find all the events that were taking place in the province. At the same time, I had asked Groupaction to provide me with some information on the participants in those events, and so on. The second report was prepared to update the first one. As you know, events in any given year take place roughly at the same time the following year, but not on the exact same date. If an event had taken place, let's say from July 6 to 10 of a given year, the following year it might be July 4 to 8. So it was very important for us to know that and to have some strategic advice on where to go or not to go, for example, who the participants at these events would be, etc. The third report was more or less of the same scope.

    As I explained yesterday, it was very important for the Government of Canada to know that these events were going to be held, who would be attending them, etc. Of course, we also wanted to know that because there were many events in the more separatist areas of Quebec, such as Lac-Saint-Jean or my area, in the Gaspé...

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I have no problem with that.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The advice we got from Groupaction was very, very important. As I indicated earlier, organizations often said to us: “Gentlemen from the Government of Canada, we don't want your money because...”.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right. Mr. Guité, let's take it for granted that this was a 100-page report. We agree on the fact that that's not the most important point any way. Approximately how many events were listed in this document? There must have been hundreds. You were given verbal advice. I presume that when they discussed such and such an event with you, you must have had the list before you, you ticked it off and you would have found out about the various activities.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Obviously, the report gave us the option to choose a certain event knowing that that would give us more of an impact.

¿  (0945)  

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine. Given the large number of events, you certainly must have written down some notes on the document. Why is the Auditor General telling us that some reports are missing? Did you personally work on the three reports?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I saw the three reports with my own eyes. If memory serves me correctly, the third report was given to us a few months before I left the public service. I saw the report, in fact it was in the file. Several weeks later, I asked to see the report again. And today, the reports aren't there.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: In your evidence from the month of July 2002, when you were asked how you authorized invoices, you said:

[English]

    “I was aware that the work had been done. How do I know?”

[Translation]

    You said, and I quote:

[English]

“Because I was on top of every event.”

[Translation]

    You have a phenomenal memory, and I understand that. You know your files, you were interested in them. You then said:

[English]

“I was aware of most of those events, so I never questioned an invoice.”

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's correct.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: How could you say, at the time, that the Government of Canada, that the State got value for money for these activities? First...

    Mr. Charles Guité: Excuse me, Mr. Proulx. Are you referring to activities or professional advice I received from Groupaction?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm referring to...

    Mr. Charles Guité: You're mixing up the two. If you're talking about activities, I would say to you that I stated four times yesterday and again today, and I will continue to say, that the government got value for money. The result is what we see today. As I stated yesterday, there were supporting documents in the files. Obviously, some are missing and some have disappeared, because when I was there, the documents were there.

    If you're referring to the other part of the Groupaction contract, which covered personal or professional advice, it took the form of verbal discussions I had. As I think I stated in 2002, and I said it again yesterday, there was a reason why we didn't want these documents or this information in the file. But obviously, the advice I received from Groupaction ensured that the Government of Canada had an incredible impact on Quebec.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm not doubting your word, Mr. Guité. I simply want to insist on the fact that you're saying that a large part of this contract was verbal.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: You probably know the workings of the federal government better than any other public servant. You've held more positions within government than some officials may have over their entire career. You're telling us that you received an invoice and that you didn't have to check it because you knew it was fine. You would sign it and you would send it off to be paid. I'm asking you the same question: How can we be assured that the State got value for money? If the following morning, after having initialed the invoice, you got run over by a bus, where would the files be? Where is the proof, the document that demonstrates that the government... I hear what you're saying. You didn't want anything kept in the files because you didn't trust other officials who could have been favourable to the PQ, the Bloc, or could have been separatists. I understand that, because we live with it. However, you knew, as a highly experienced official, that when you were no longer there, someone would have to look into the documents or the justifications.

    Mr. Charles Guité: As I said earlier, in the files, there was a contract, there was an invoice and there was a result. We're talking about two things: an event and professional advice. I stand by what I've said: the product was delivered and the results are in. If there are documents that are no longer in the files today, compare the 1996 audit to 2000 audit. Why were the documents there in 1996 and why weren't they in 2000?

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Are you saying that whenever you received verbal advice you took notes?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

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

[English]

    Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

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

    I would like to spend a couple of minutes on the difference between the sponsorship program as it was known officially and some of the problems you've identified, Mr. Guité, with the Department of Finance and Earnscliffe.

    You mentioned the contact with Terrie O'Leary and her expression “Paul would prefer it” in respect of the influence they were trying to exert. Were there any other contacts with you from the Minister of Finance's office?

    Mr. Charles Guité: What do you mean? We just discussed this issue. We had contact on those files. That's the only file on which I had a contact, and I think once that happened it never repeated itself, because it was a dead-end.

¿  (0950)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did any other individuals from the Minister of Finance's office contact you? Did Scott Reid contact you?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Not that I can recall.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: In your reply to Warren Kinsella, copies of which we now have in front of us, regarding the origin of contracts, you indicate that departments other than Finance had problems in the awarding of contracts. Can you give a sense of whether Finance was the worst, the best, or somewhere in the middle?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I don't know where I mentioned other departments.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On page 3, near the bottom: “the Department of Finance is not the only one breaching the guidelines.”

    Mr. Charles Guité: I can't recall. I would have to get the file. I don't know when the Goodale-Dingwall issue came up. It could have been referring to that. I don't know what the other ones were right now; I can't recall.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Does Finance stick out in your mind?

    Mr. Charles Guité: One that sticks out very clearly is the Mr. Goodale-Mr. Dingwall issue, which became a real political fight between two ministers, there's no question. I got involved in that, and my advice to the minister, Mr. Dingwall, was “Don't do that; let's follow the process.” The other one I obviously remember very clearly, as there are documents to show, was the dealings between my office and Minister Martin's office.

    Have I talked to other departments or ministers' offices on suggestions? I can't remember. I could name departments, but I couldn't give proof.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I was just wondering if you could give us a sense of whether Finance was worse than others, was in the middle, there were others that were just as bad.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I may have had discussions with bureaucrats in other departments who said that their minister would prefer it, and I said, “Look, it's a non-starter.” I think I've used the Mr. Goodale example to other departments. I've said, “Don't go that route. It's not going to go anywhere.”

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: In light of what the Auditor General has said, do you think corrective measures were taken concerning those issues you spoke of in your reply to Mr. Kinsella?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Are you referring to the current Auditor General's report?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I mean, in looking at what she has said generally about advertising—

    Mr. Charles Guité: I can't comment on corrective action taken after her report.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, outside of the Auditor General's report, do you think corrective measures were taken in terms of this particular incident involving the Department of Finance's attempt to influence the process?

    Mr. Charles Guité: What corrective action would you take? The corrective action was that we were not going to do it. And if the Auditor General made observations in the 2000 and the 2002 report or the last one, I can't comment on that; I wasn't there. But in this case there were no measures to be taken. There is a minister's office—and it's very clear, you have the documentation in two cases—trying to interfere with the process. My minister of the day, who was Mr. Dingwall, and his chief of staff, Mr. Kinsella, obviously consulted me, and I said “Don't go there, because if you go there you're opening the barn door, and the horses are all going to come out.” That was the corrective measure.

    There were no corrective measures to be taken, except I may have used that example to other departments that may have approached me—not at the political level, but at the bureaucratic level—saying, “Chuck, we've had an indication from our minister's office...”. My reply would have been, “Don't go there, because it isn't going to work.”

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You've mentioned a couple of times a few differences, or some changes that were brought in concerning this whole area, when the Liberals came to power in 1993. The sense for many of us is that what happened was simply a change in advertising firms. There was a group of firms in the Tory time that were used regularly and a group of firms now in the Liberal time that were used. From your experience, and you've been pretty clear about what it's like in Ottawa around this whole file, was there really much difference between the way the Tories did business and the Liberals did business?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think I addressed that issue yesterday. There is no question that in Mr. Trudeau's years—I wasn't there, but Andrée LaRose, who was on my staff, was an initial employee when the Joe Clark government created AMG, so she has a lot of history—“competitions” did not exist, because there was no access to information. You did what you had to do. I remember people saying to me, “Chuck, it was the drawer system. You pulled out the drawer and you looked at the list and you went down the list.” This is hearsay. I wasn't there. I can't comment on those years.

    In the Conservative years—I was there in the second mandate of the Conservatives, and I'm not going through that again, because we're wasting our time—you know what the processes were. They were political appointees. What I can clearly say, and I said it yesterday, was that the cleanest I've seen the system as far as open competition is concerned was when the Liberals came to power in 1993. They removed the political appointees from my staff, and because of the direction we were getting from the political administration reviewing the policy, we changed the procurement policy, and I had no choice but to go to the open bidding system.

    The other key point that I think again is incorrect is that we just changed the agencies. If I remember correctly, Groupe Everest did work during the Conservative years; Publicité Martin did work during the Conservative years; Vickers and Benson, no; Palmer Jarvis did work during the Conservative years. About Groupaction I can't remember, but the ones I just named have also done work during the Liberal years. As far as saying “they were the wrong political party and we're going to switch them” is concerned, no, I don't think that was the case.

    If you looked at the agencies today—and it might be quite interesting, Mr. Chairman, if you got a list of all the agencies in each department—you'd find they're not all “Liberal firms”.

¿  (0955)  

    The Chair: This is your final question.

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

    You said yesterday you never thumbed your nose at Parliament. Yet it would seem to me that the way you described the process was to say you would move money from one vote to another vote and—

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That was my sense of what you said. It seemed to me that was a breach of the Financial Administration Act.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, what I said yesterday is the reason I used agencies to administer the sponsorship program was not to transfer funds from one vote to another, because that's a totally different process from doing a sponsorship through an agency.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right, but in that sponsorship program you move from operations to programming, and therefore it's the same thing.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, it's not the same thing.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    I was a little curious about your comment on the political fight between Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Goodale. I was curious that Mr. Dingwall would turn to you for advice on a political fight between two ministers when you were in the junior levels of the executive ranks. Would he go through deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, and all the way down to the bottom-level EX to find you for political advice on how to handle a political fight?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. I think, Mr. Chairman, you're taking my comments out of context.

    Let me answer your question.

    The Chair: Please do.

    Mr. Charles Guité: There was obviously no question when I met with the assistant, with Mr. Kinsella, that he would have indicated to me that the argument was between my minister and Minister Goodale. But Minister Dingwall would never discuss with me any discussions he'd had with Mr. Goodale or tell me he was having a political fight.

    The Chair: But you just said you gave him advice on how to handle it.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I gave advice to Mr. Kinsella.

    The Chair: No, you said Mr. Dingwall. I'm quite sure you said Mr. Dingwall.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, I may have said that, but I wouldn't deal directly with the minister on this issue. I dealt with Mr. Kinsella.

    The Chair: Okay. You're absolutely sure about that?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I'm absolutely sure, sir. I would not meet with Minister Dingwall to discuss an issue he has with another minister.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. MacKay, eight minutes.

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

    Mr. Guité, I want to ask you some questions specifically about two contracts I believe you were involved in awarding.

    The first was a December 1996 contract awarded by the Department of Public Works to Groupaction. It dealt with the firearms registry, the promotions, the public relations efforts around Bill C-68, which you will recall. This contract, as I understand it, firstly was awarded to one communications firm, namely Lafleur, but later given to Jean Brault's firm, Groupaction. It was for, as I understand it, $330,000 for this promotional work.

    I'm led to believe the contract was awarded by Public Works, as opposed to the Department of Justice. Is that correct?

À  (1000)  

    Mr. Charles Guité: I'd have to see the file, but I think in the gun registry program, and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, the implementation of the gun registry was most successful in the province of Quebec, if I recall rightly.

    Why did we issue the contract on the gun registry? And again, Mr. MacKay, I'd have to see the file or the details of the contract. We were going to do some promotion in the rest of the country and I think give the credit to la belle province for the success. I can't really remember the details, but it seems, I recall, it was around “Let's use that again as a positive thing for la belle province versus the rest of the country.” It must have been a study or something on that contract. It couldn't have been a....

    Mr. Peter MacKay: The concern I have is not the overall success of the promotion of Bill C-68, but the concern here is that, firstly, the work wasn't done. It was taken from one firm, given to another.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Let me comment on that, so I don't forget.

    If it went from Lafleur Communications to Groupaction, what I can say there is that I think at the time Groupaction was the actual agency assigned to the Department of Justice.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: In the firm that you were using most often, was there a change, in your mind, between which you would be more prone to use, Lafleur or Groupaction?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. As you keep talking about it, again, I'd have to go back and look at the competition that was held at the Department of Justice. If I remember rightly, I think when we held the competition for the Department of Justice there was a consortium of firms.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Does the name Wendy Sailman ring a bell? Was she the director general or acting director general at the Department of Justice at that time?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think so, yes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm led to believe, Mr. Guité, that she wasn't aware of this contract. Would that come as a surprise to you?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Definitely.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: It seems odd to me that the Department of Justice wouldn't be aware of the awarding of a contract for the promotion of a program that they were implementing.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That they were implementing, yes.

    No, I'm not aware of that.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And it seems also odd that Public Works, if in fact Public Works' budget was tapped to pay this $330,000 for work that was to promote a justice department budget item.... That would be out of whack, would it not?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes. And the money that was used there was not the operating budget of Public Works. It was the sponsorship fund.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Right. So if it was work done for the justice department, it would come out of their budget, normally?

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's correct.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: So it would be improper if that wasn't the case.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's correct.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

    Mr. Brault is the same Mr. Brault you referred to in your opening remarks as having gone to his chalet, is that correct?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And you had a personal relationship with Mr. Brault outside of your professional relationship.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Not very much until I left the government.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

    When you went to Mr. Brault's chalet, were there other individuals present? Were there any ministers present?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. In fact what I said yesterday, when I corrected my testimony of 2002.... It was my wife who reminded me of that when the minutes were released, and I said to her, “No, it can't be.” And she reminded me of the meal, and I said “You're right, we were there.”

    Mr. Peter MacKay: And you knew Mr. Lafleur as well outside of your professional capacity.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: No? You never went fishing with Mr. Lafleur?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: You did go fishing with Mr. Lafleur.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I went fishing with Mr. Lafleur. I went fishing with I forget who else.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: But that would be more than professional if you went fishing with him.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, if you want to say it that way. Okay, I agree.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: What about a Jacques Corriveau? Do you know Mr. Corriveau?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I know Mr. Corriveau, yes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

    I want to just move on now to another contract that was awarded to the Bronfman Foundation in 1995. That contract went to L'Information essentielle. This is the same L'Information essentielle that is mentioned in the Auditor General's report. In this contract there's also work that was done on the Bluenose file, which you referenced yesterday in your testimony. But the concern here is that you chose this foundation to do some of the work, which I understand was the cinematography, filming. The allegation here is that the contact itself was backdated; that is, it was work that was done at another time and then the contract was made to show as if it happened at a different date.

    It seems odd to me that this would go to a foundation, which isn't an advertising agency at all. It was a sole-source contract, allegedly for $1,070,000.

    Do you have any recollection of that contract?

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Charles Guité: Absolutely not.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: None whatsoever.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. I'm trying to think. I know there was a Bronfman project when Canada.... No, I can't recall.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I understand that we're coming at you with a lot of information, Mr. Guité, in fairness to you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, that's fine. But again, Mr. MacKay, if I had the contract and the file I could probably comment on it. I have a fairly good memory.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Could I take a moment to allow him to review this?

    The Chair: Yes, you can, because you're going to table all these documents and we'll have them translated and distributed. But if you have them there, you can give them to Mr. Guité, allow him to take a look at it if he feels that will help him refresh his memory.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, in fact this is a document that members of the committee would have. It's part of the information that was provided by Mr. Cutler. It's referred to as document 36 and it is entitled “Bronfman Foundation”.

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chair, for clarification, through you to Mr. MacKay, is that the Heritage Moments series sponsored through the Bronfman Foundation? They did the Heritage Moments.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: No, I don't believe so, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Are you sure?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I think you may be right, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: You'd better look closely.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: The 1995 television and cinema contract, I believe it did go through Heritage Canada.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No, the Bronfmans had a program called Heritage Moments, which they partnered with other people.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. MacKay says he doesn't think so, but he's not absolutely sure.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Can I show this to you, Mr. Williams?

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Yes, please do.

À  (1007)  

---

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Guité, can we talk on these particular documents now?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The only comment I can make, and I'd have to go back to the file, is that I think that is the Heritage Moments, because there are a couple of documents on the contract here that refer to patrimoine, la Fondation CRB. So I think that was the--

    The Chair: Okay, we'll start the clock, Mr. MacKay, on your question.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Again, I don't know what.... I see Mr. Cutler's note added to the file, probably after, because it's photocopied over a page.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: So I guess the bottom line, Mr. Guité, is—

    The Chair: We're only starting the clock now. It's your question; you have the floor. You can ask questions.

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

    My question, quite simply, Mr. Guité, is that you take issue or deny the suggestion that is contained in this memo from Mr. Cutler that this was sole-sourced, that this over $1 million contract was sole-sourced to a foundation that isn't an advertising agency and that it was backdated. You deny that this is the case, having familiarized yourself with this document.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, I'd have to go back. I don't know how this was, if it was sole-sourced or not. I don't know.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, if it was sole-sourced, is that not a problem, sole-sourcing a contract to a foundation as opposed to an advertising agency?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Not necessarily.

    Where's the...

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Not necessarily?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, it depends. Like I said, I'd have to go back and find out how this was done. I don't know.

    The Chair: Okay, your time is up.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I have no idea if this was sole-sourced. Who says it--

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay, I'm sorry, your time is up.

    Just on that point, Mr. Guité, you did say yesterday that you set out the conditions that were allowable to bypass the competitive bidding process—that is, an emergency, which is what you said—

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, Mr. Chair, that would have nothing to do with this contract.

    The Chair: It's over $1 million, so it's not an emergency.

    So Mr. MacKay's point was that if it was not put out for competitive bid, that would be a problem, wouldn't it?

    Mr. Charles Guité: If that's the case, yes, I think we'd have to look at it. But that's what I'm looking for here. There's no indication that this didn't go out to competition that I can see here.

    The Chair: Okay. And the second point, of course, was why would one be using a trust if one is trying to do some advertising and cinematography?

    Mr. Charles Guité: We're talking here of a contract when the sponsorship program did not exist. We're talking November 16, 1995, so it was probably in November 1995. I didn't have a sponsorship program then.

    The Chair: That was the unity fund then, was it?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes, it could have been.

    The Chair: I never did get it clear in my mind whether the unity fund and the sponsorship program were running simultaneously—

    Mr. Charles Guité: Never.

    The Chair: —or one followed the other.

    Okay, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think if you really want to get to the bottom of this, we could call the Bronfman Foundation. They're still around. I think you will discover that they did a series called Heritage Moments, and they could give us the backup to this.

    The Chair: Okay, I'm sure you'll make a motion to that effect, Mr. Mills.

    Well, we'll just add them to the names and we'll bring them in.

    We're moving on. Madam Jennings, please.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Guité.

    Mr. Guité, when you were asked by Mr. Kenney about these various documents that were just tabled and you were given a moment to look over them, there was a document, a memorandum from the office of the public works minister to you, dated July 24, 1995. Then there's a letter from Minister Goodale, who at the time was at Agriculture Canada, addressed to Mr. Dingwall, March 27, 1995. You do not have a copy of that?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The only letters I have here are the ones between Kinsella and myself.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The chair also tabled a letter signed by Mr. Dingwall addressed to Mr. Goodale, Minister of Agriculture, dated July 25, 1995.

    The Chair: I didn't actually table it, Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, you read it into the record. I thank you for the correction. You mentioned the nature of each document with the date, who it was sent to, and who it was signed by.

    The Chair: I only mentioned who it was from.

À  (1015)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You're stopping my time? Thank you.

    The Chair: I had to correct you. I didn't say anything about the contents of the document.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But you did mention that at one point there was some kind of discussion that went on between Mr. Goodale and Mr. Dingwall.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I would definitely assume so, because in my meeting with Warren he clearly indicated to me that Minister Dingwall was talking to Mr. Goodale.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: About a sole-sourcing?

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's right.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And you said don't go there, it's going to open up—

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's right. Yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So to your knowledge, what happened with Mr. Goodale's request?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I'd have to look at the file and see if there was a competition held.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine.

    I have here a letter from Mr. David Dingwall, Minister of Public Works, to Mr. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in which he acknowledges receipt of Mr. Goodale's letter of March 27, 1995. I'd like a copy to be given to you and a copy to the clerk, so that it can be translated and copies made available to the members.

    The letter says:

Dear colleague:

Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1995, in which you seek my support in assisting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to implement the changes announced in the recent budget.

I share your view on the need to ensure the timely and equitable implementation of these changes, and I can appreciate the importance to the Prairie agricultural sector of an early resolution of the issues arising from the Western Grain Transportation Reform.

With respect to your request...

    Mr. Charles Guité: What is the date of that letter, March 27?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, the letter is in response to Mr. Goodale's of March 27, 1995.

    Mr. Charles Guité: And what is the date of the one you're quoting now?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I cannot make it out. It could be March 29, 1995.

    Mr. Charles Guité: So you're quoting a letter from Mr. Dingwall to Mr. Goodale.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, in which Mr. Dingwall acknowledges receipt... You don't have the letter from Mr...

    The Chair: You don't have another copy, do you? Let's sort this out.

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, please.

À  (1020)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I had asked if you were aware because Mr. Goodale's letter to Mr. Dingwall was asking for sole-sourcing, and gave a variety of reasons why he wished to go sole-sourcing. You assumed...you weren't sure, and you said you had to check your files to see whether or not Mr. Dingwall acceded to Mr. Goodale's request for sole-sourcing or whether it was an open bidding selection.

    From the letter that Mr. Dingwall writes to Mr. Goodale acknowledging Mr. Goodale's March 27, 1995, request, he informs Mr. Goodale:

With respect to your request, it is my understanding that a sole-source contract was issued to the Earnscliffe Strategy Group on March 29, 1995. I trust that this meets with your satisfaction.

Once again, thank you for writing, and please accept my best wishes.

Yours very truly,

David C. Dingwall.

    Mr. Charles Guité: So now you have the answer.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. So it was two days—

    Mr. Charles Guité: Which is what I said earlier. I didn't know what happened to the process—

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I understand that, but you had discussion when this request came in. You had discussion with the chief of staff, according to your testimony this morning—

    Mr. Charles Guité: Definitely, yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: —advising not to. And the minister, or the chief of staff, somebody, ordered that it be sole-sourcing, and PWGSC went sole-sourcing.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes. And that would have been my organization, the public opinion research sector.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Exactly. Thank you.

    An hon. member: It was left off of Mr. Kenney's package.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, well, it's not the only thing that gets left off of packages.

    The Chair: We'll have no more comments.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Oh, now, now, now...

    Mr. Guité, I want to come to the issue of Earnscliffe. I heard your testimony, and I read your testimony again this morning to make sure that I understood it. Your testimony was that Ms. O'Leary contacted you at least once by telephone, that there may in fact have been a meeting as well—

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, there was a meeting with Ms. O'Leary.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: —that there was in fact a meeting, and that you received a memo in which she was directing you, on behalf of the Prime Minister—“Paul”, as you used it—to give a contract to Earnscliffe, notwithstanding that your open bidding selection had already qualified a list of companies.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, not qualified; there was a competition in process.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay, a competition in process.

    I've actually read the memo you received, and I don't see anywhere where she says to give the contract to Earnscliffe. What I understood from that memo was that she says to add on, allow other companies to bid in this process--

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's interfering with the process.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: —and if I'm not mistaken, I didn't see the name Earnscliffe in the memo. Am I mistaken on that?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, you're absolutely right. But I saw another memo this morning, I think from this side of the table—

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: One that they wrote this morning?

    Mr. Charles Guité: —on the Earnscliffe, where there was only one company that replied to the bid.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): That's hearsay. He hasn't got it. Have him refer to the document.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Guité, you said there was an open bidding selection under way in which companies could apply to bid.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's correct.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay. Ms. Terrie O'Leary, according to your previous testimony, called you and said, okay, we would like other companies to be added onto the list of companies participating in this open bidding selection.

    Mr. Charles Guité: You know what? I think we're talking about two different things here. I think we're talking about an advertising agency selection versus a research firm.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Who gave us the memo dated May 30, 1994? It came from him. That's the memo. That's the one he tabled.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You tabled a memo that was from Terrie O'Leary, dated May 30, 1994, addressed to—

    Mr. Charles Guité: And that memo does not mention Earnscliffe at all, I agree.

    The Chair: Just a second.

    Who brought this memo from Terrie O'Leary?

À  (1025)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It was distributed.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I tabled it yesterday, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: That's good.We're just going to get this cleared up.

    You're over time, Madam Jennings.

    Let's get the documents straight. There's a letter from David Dingwall to the Honourable Ralph Goodale.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's not the document we're talking about.

    There's a package that they're redistributing that was a memo to Bruce Young. Attached to that is a memo from Terrie O'Leary.

    The Chair: Yes, I've got that.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: That is the memo we're referring to. That is the document Mr. Guité tabled to support his allegations that there had been interference from the Minister of Finance's office. He said he had documentation, and this is the documentation he tabled.

    He's now saying that in no place in this document, in the names of the firms that Ms. O'Leary asked to be added to the competition, does Earnscliffe appear.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The previous memo we talked about that came from—

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: He talked about a memo we have never seen in our hands. You know, that memo could be between Mr. Toews and Mr. MacKay. I would like to see a document that was issued by the Minister of Finance or someone.

    You're alleging there was interference. The document you tabled does not include the name Earnscliffe.

    The Chair: Ms. Longfield has said that you have not tabled any memo that shows that Earnscliffe was added to the list, or that involves Earnscliffe at all, yet you've been talking as if that were the case.

    Which documents are you referring to? Have they been tabled with this committee?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The one I got this morning--again, we're going back to 1995.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: What we got this morning is not the document he tabled in support of his allegation. So that's after the fact.

    The Chair: Okay, Ms. Longfield. That's fine.

    Mr. Guité.

    Mr. Charles Guité: What Madam Longfield is saying I don't think is what I said yesterday. I didn't produce any documents to date on Earnscliffe.

    The Chair: You're stating that you did not table any documents with this committee that involved Earnscliffe.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's right. The memo I tabled yesterday was to do with advertising agency selection, public opinion, and research. We have a copy of the memo somewhere. I don't have it here right now.

    But let me answer your question—

    The Chair: Just a second. Answer the chair's questions.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Here it is.

    The Chair: What memo do you have in your hand right there?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's called “1994 Retail Debt Strategy”, dated May 30, 1994, Office of the Minister of Finance.

    The Chair: That's the memo I have here to Mr. Nick LaPan, Brian Smith, copied to the minister and David Dodge, dated May 30, 1994, from Terrie O'Leary. Is that the document you're talking about?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: That document does not mention Earnscliffe.

    The Chair: Just a second, Ms. Longfield. Thank you very much, Ms. Longfield.

    This document was part of the documents you referred to yesterday. Tell us about the references to Earnscliffe in that memo.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I don't think there are any.

    The Chair: There are none.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Monsieur Desrochers.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Mr. Chair, could I make a correction? He's not listening.

    Mr. Chair, there's a very important point here. I want to go back to Mr. MacKay's question about five minutes ago on this famous contract.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Thanks to my good legal counsel I have the sheet here signed by Mr. Cutler. The contract was competitive. It's right here.

    The Chair: Okay. That's part of the documents that Mr. Cutler tabled?

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's right.

    Management fees, whatever... Here he says another thing. Then it was signed by... It was prepared by Mr. Cutler.

    The Chair: Okay. We'll check to see. I presume we have that on file, because it was tabled by Mr. Cutler.

    Monsieur Desrochers.

À  (1030)  

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Guité, you were very specific when you described the way things were done under the Conservatives. Clearly, you had two political assistants and they decided which direction to take. You told us that later on, the process became competitive.

    How can you explain that a firm such as Earnscliffe was awarded a contract under the new competition guidelines established by the Liberal government?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's very easy to explain. Let's get back to the note that Mr. Kinsella sent me, and to which I replied. The cahier de charges—I think that's the French term for scope of work—was prepared by the Department of Finance. Once the system had been set up, you would see an announcement for an upcoming research project, for instance. In this case, 17 firms indicated that they were interested in receiving the specifications to study them and prepare a bid. Out of the 17 firms, there was one that replied, and it was Earnscliffe.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: How did you react?

    Mr. Charles Guité: As I said earlier, the industry studied the process, and the specifications were more or less designed for that to happen: you had to be 22 years old, have blond hair, a blue shirt and a red tie.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You told me yesterday that the contract had been renewed later on. How do you explain that?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, I didn't say that one particular contract was renewed. The comment I believe I made yesterday—and I may be wrong—but in fact I'm going to make it this morning—is that these things are easy to check. You only have to submit an access to information request for all contracts awarded to that company. Ask for a copy of the contracts, and you will see whether it was competitive or not.

    Clearly, many things happened after I left, but I'm not going back on what I said yesterday, which was that the office interfered in both cases: with respect to advertising and with respect to research. The proof is here, in the documents. As I said earlier, if I wrote up specifications and if the criteria were so stringent that only one firm could meet them, then there was a problem.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Guité, I would like to get back to interference on the part of Mr. Paul Martin's office. Was Earnscliffe one of the names on the list of 17 firms?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, yes. If the name hadn't been on the list, it could not have been awarded the contract.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's what we were saying earlier...

    Mr. Charles Guité: The list isn't prepared by anyone.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who prepares it?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The list is created by the agencies or research companies who respond to the request. The system works as follows. We publish an overview of the work to be done in the MERX system. For example, we indicate which department is looking for a research company to do such and such a thing. This is very general. From that point, research companies contact us with their intent to bid. If we receive intents from 17 firms, we then send the project specifications. This is how the list is created. Everyone in the industry is entitled to express their interest in the project.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who prepares them?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Usually, the project specifications are prepared by the department. When we sent the specifications to the 17 firms, we received one reply: from Earnscliffe.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Guité, does that mean that your client, the Department of Finance, who had prepared the specifications and sent them to you, could have known that only one single firm could meet them exactly?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Only one firm responded.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Guité, I'd like to get back to the national unity fund. This was money used for the referendum campaign, correct?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: When money from the national unity fund was paid to your department, was there a list accompanying it or was there only money?

    Mr. Charles Guité: In my organization, it was a fund transfer.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You never saw any sort of list?

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. For example, we made a decision to have those outdoor signs. Of course, we also used other types of advertising and we did other things during the referendum. The money my organization needed, be it for advertising or promotion, came from the national unity fund, I'm sure. I didn't have a list; I submitted my requests. I went to a meeting and I said that if we did this or that, it would cost $15 million.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who assured you that the agencies who would do the work for which you were going to spend $8 million were really federalist entities?

    Mr. Charles Guité: We didn't need agencies to do that.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You didn't need agencies to do work valued at $8 million.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. We rented outdoor billboards as well as ads on Montreal buses and subways. I think that in 2002 I said that we had plastered Quebec with signs through Attractions Canada. That was a mistake because Attractions Canada started in 1997, long after the referendum. Nevertheless we did do a lot of Government of Canada advertising, be it anti-tobacco adds, Tourism Canada or for any department. These ads did exist.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Guité, let me get back to the RCMP file. When the commissioner appeared before us this week, he told us that at one point, someone had suggested calling on you to obtain the money the RCMP needed for its 125^th anniversary celebration. Who told the RCMP that you were the person to contact? Was it someone who worked for the agencies that were on the list, starting with Groupaction, which knocked on the RCMP's door, or did someone from the RCMP...

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. What agency carried out the project?

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Lafleur Communication Marketing.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Lafleur Communication Marketing undoubtedly told the RCMP that it had received the necessary authorization to support the 125^th anniversary and my name was certainly mentioned.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: What do you mean by “authorization”?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I'm talking about the $125,000, $150,000 or $1 million that we gave the RCMP for its 125^th anniversary.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You're the one who gave the authorization.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes, definitely.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: The commissioner told us that someone from Lafleur Communication Marketing suddenly came into the picture. I'm referring to the evidence that you gave on the notorious Groupaction reports. Does that mean that these Groupaction reports were subsequently distributed to agencies so that they could solicit business?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. Those reports weren't distributed.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Guité, you told us that it was important for Public Works to have the list. What did you do with it? Did it remain within the department? Was it sent to other agencies?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, it always stayed in the department, with us.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: No agency ever called you for the list of events?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I have one last question for you. Given that Groupaction had the list, could that agency have used the list for event poaching?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Not that I know of.

    M. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Mr. Desrochers.

    Ms. Longfield, please, eight minutes.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Mr. Chair, but eight minutes hardly seems enough.

    The Chair: We all feel that way.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I want to get back to this. It seems to me, Mr. Guité, that when people agree with you or go along with your particular point of view... You've been known as a fixer, someone who gets things done, someone who will bend the rules if necessary—if people kind of suggest we go in one direction or another, that's input, but if they have perhaps a different approach, that's interference.

    You've categorized the memo from Ms. O'Leary as being interference because she had the audacity, or the whatever, to suggest that we perhaps wanted to make this particular RFP more inclusive. She wanted to actually add names to the list. Is that a fair categorization of her interference—that she wanted to add names to the list?

    Mr. Charles Guité: As I said yesterday, and I'll repeat it again, any interference or any communication between a minister's office and a contracting authority is interference by a minister's office.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. You still allege that. So any discussion you had with Mr. Gagliano, any discussion you had with someone else, that was more than just the office, that was the minister himself—

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: —and if they suggested that you might want to do it in one way or another, that's not interference, that's input.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. I don't know.... You weren't here yesterday, if I remember.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: But I was listening very carefully, and I have every word of the transcript here.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Let me repeat what I said yesterday. Minister Gagliano, Minister Dingwall, PMO, PCO have never interfered or become involved in contracting for the selection of a firm—well, PCO could, but they never...

À  (1040)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order at this point?

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, on your point of order.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to beg the indulgence of the committee. We have documentation that is being put forward. We now are involved in a line of questioning with Mr. Guité that I would submit—and I hope the committee agrees—is totally beyond the terms of reference of this committee as pointed out by the auditor.

    Perhaps I may submit this with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. On chapter 5, paragraph 5.13—

    The Chair: Are you talking about the Auditor General's report?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: That's right. It's chapter 5 in the Auditor General's report. And I read directly from it, Mr. Chairman. It says:

Our objective was to determine whether the government had adequate controls over its public opinion research activities between 1999–2000 and 2002–03. We wanted to know whether, in contracting for public opinion research services, it obtained the best value for the Crown and followed a transparent process that gave equitable access to suppliers of public opinion research services.

And Mr. Chairman, it's between those dates—1999–2000 and 2002–03.

    Mr. Chairman, I would submit that we are now out of order. We should go back to the charge and the parameters that were established by the Auditor General.

    You have continuously reminded us in every resolution that has been put forward that, pursuant to our review of chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report, we should have these motions passed or we should do these things.

    I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have gone far beyond that now. This line of questioning may be appropriate for another time, but I would submit that it is out of order with respect to the Auditor General's report.

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

    We are dealing with three chapters of the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General's focus of that audit of chapter 5 was as you have just read.

    Our role, as I've said many times, is about ensuring that the government is accountable to Parliament for the stewardship of the funds. The sponsorship program covers a very large area.

    Mr. Guité has said that many of these funds came out of the sponsorship program. I believe, in fact, that he said this particular contract we're talking about came out of the sponsorship program.

    Mr. Charles Guité: If we're talking about the—

    The Chair: Mr. Guité, I'm talking at the moment, please.

    Therefore we have wide parameters.

    Mr. Cutler came in here with a large number of documents. We have tons of documents supplied to us by the public works department in relation to our investigation.

    I asked this morning whether the discussion that came up regarding Earnscliffe was tied to this particular investigation.

    We are not constrained by the Auditor General's focus. We are constrained by the issues that have been brought to this committee because she tabled her report in Parliament, and that was automatically referred to the public accounts committee.

    She has done her audit. She's given us the facts. We now have to ask about the concept of stewardship of the funds. It's a large area, but we have to ensure that we stay within the concept of that.

    Mrs. Longfield wishes to try to find out...and I've had difficulty in my mind, too, trying to separate what is, in the witness's mind, political interference and what is political involvement. To me, they're so close together that one has to be careful.

    The government as a political entity sets political direction. The government as an entity has the power and the capacity, of course, to fine-tune and change direction any time they want, and to give that direction to the bureaucracy to ensure that this is done, all within the rules.

    On this very fine splitting of hairs by the witness on what is political interference and what is political involvement or engagement, I can't figure it out myself. Mrs. Longfield is trying to figure it out.

    So Mrs. Longfield, you have the floor.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I'm still on a point of order.

À  (1045)  

    The Chair: Okay. I don't believe your point of order is valid because I believe, and Ms. Longfield believes, that this is within the terms of reference of the Auditor General's report. We're going to continue.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to challenge the ruling of the chair, but I'm going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Walsh and the steering committee should take this—

    The Chair: Take this matter under advisement.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: —matter under advisement, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like you to do that at the earliest possible convenience.

    The Chair: We will.

    Okay. We're going to continue on for the next 30 minutes.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Didn't you stop Mr. Guité?

    The Chair: The chair was speaking and he tried to interrupt. I didn't stop him from speaking, Mr. Lastewka, that was the issue.

    Ms. Longfield, you have the floor.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

    I appreciate the discussion we've had. I guess, as you've indicated, I have this difficulty about “input” and “interference”. I also have difficulty, from time to time, with Mr. Guité indicating that Mr. Cutler—and I think these were his words—“tinkered with the files”. How does he characterize tinkering?

    If you put in an invoice after the fact, if you shred a document or if you change things slightly, in your mind, that's not tinkering, but if someone else does it, it's tinkering. I'm having some difficulty on how we characterize certain terms.

    I want to get back to this interference. Are you suggesting that at any time there was any desire to circumvent the RFP process, that if somehow people were added to the list, they wouldn't have to go through the regular RFP?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, I'd like to table the RFP as it relates to this. I think people need to know that when there's input, this simply says that someone else should be allowed to go through a very rigorous process, and it's hardly interfering.

    The Chair: Is it in two official languages?

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: We'll have it copied and circulated in a few minutes.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The only thing I can repeat here, and I'll say it again, is that if a minister's office suggests sending memos listing the names of companies and prepares a scope of work that is designed to fit one company, to me, that is interfering with the process.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: This memo does not indicate that they're preparing a scope in any way. I don't want you to ascribe that motivation to the memo you've given us.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I guess I want to leave that.

    Mr. Guité, several times during the hearing today you've referred to Warren. I take it that's Warren Kinsella. Is that correct?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Yes.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Have you spoken to Mr. Kinsella within the last couple of weeks or the last couple of months? Do you have an ongoing relationship with Mr. Kinsella?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, I don't. The last time I spoke to Mr. Kinsella would be when I was working for the ICA, which would probably be five or six months before Mr. Boudria had me retire. I have no contact with Mr. Kinsella.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you have any contact with anyone you dealt with when you were in this file, anyone from the former Prime Minister's office, anyone from the ad agencies, or all of those?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: In reply to a question from Mr. MacKay, you said that you didn't have a personal relationship with some of the folks, and yet you admitted that you'd gone fishing with them. That's another one where I have a problem with your definition of a personal relationship. When I have a business relationship, I don't go out buying clothes and shoes or go fishing. I consider that personal.

    On your professional relationship with some of these firms, how expansive was that professional relationship? Would it mean going to a hockey game? Would it mean going to a sporting event? Would you be, as I say, fishing? Would you be at someone's cottage or at a cocktail reception?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, I don't go to cocktail receptions, but there's no question that I've met a lot of those people in my career by attending certain events, and some of my staff have attended some of those events.

    Yes, I went fishing with Mr. Lafleur. I think it was in 1997 or 1996. I could probably go to my bank. I hope they keep the records, because I issued a cheque to Mr. Lafleur for the cost.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: No, I'm not suggesting that.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, let me finish.

    You have to remember that from the allegations or the hearsay that I've heard in the last year and a half to two years, boy, I'd be a pretty rich guy. I'd have a big boat and an airplane. I have a ranch now in Arizona, by the way—that was the latest news.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Guité, I'm not suggesting in any way that you pocketed any funds. I'm only asking about your reply to a question from Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, there's no question that I've built relationships with those people over 20 years. I won't deny that.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

    Who is Jacques Corriveau?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Jacques Corriveau goes back to when I was at the exposition centre in 1984–1985. He was in a firm that had, if I recall correctly, design exhibits and so forth. I met Mr. Corriveau, I think, in the days of Mr. Dingwall and Mr. Kinsella. He has come to my office a couple of times, but for the business he was in, I couldn't do work with him. He's more of an exhibit house than anything else.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: What role did he play in the sponsorship?

    Mr. Charles Guité: None that I know of.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: There was no relationship.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: All right. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Longfield.

    Ms. Ablonczy, please, eight minutes.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Guité, yesterday when you and I were speaking I asked you about contracts or work that was done with no contract. You recalled only one contract that had been missing, but work had been done. You said there may have been others. I'd like you to tell the committee more about that. Which contract were you referring to? How did it came about that work was done for no contract? Are there any others that you now recall?

    Mr. Charles Guité: What contract are we talking about?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yesterday I believe you mentioned a contract. I think you said it was for Canada savings bonds.

À  (1050)  

    Mr. Charles Guité: Correct. Yes, I recall that.

    Now, can I remember other contracts that we backdated? I can't comment on that. I'd have to go back to the file. But what I explained very clearly yesterday is the process when the contract is backdated, and that is that you have given verbal directions and the work starts.

    If you remember my example yesterday, when the Department of Finance got the invoice for the bond campaign, they said “We can't pay that invoice; there's no contract.” So we in fact—“we” being my organization--issued a contract and backdated it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. You just don't do that on a regular basis.

    I think the comment I made yesterday—and I'm sure it's in the blues—is that it has probably happened on a couple of other occasions. But again, they were backdated. The only other way to pay the invoice, as I explained yesterday, is through a confirming order, and that's a very lengthy process.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Would you characterize this backdating of contracts as a regular occurrence?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: How often would it have happened?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Oh, I would say it was the exception rather than the rule.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: And how often would it have happened?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I'd have to go and check the files and see how many contracts were backdated when I was there.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What's your best recollection?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I have no idea, Madame. It would be wrong for me to....

    I could say two and it might be twenty; I could say twenty and it's three. So I have no idea. It's very easy to find out. Just look at the contracts that were issued and look at the dates.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Guité, I think a lot of people are troubled by your testimony that there was a decision to minimize, shall we say, documentation in the file to avoid access-to-information requests. As you know, information requests are a way the public has of ensuring transparency and openness in the operations of government.

    I'm curious as to who would have authorized you to bypass the access-to-information process in such a cavalier manner.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I didn't bypass the process. I would have bypassed the process if I had a document and I didn't put it on the file, if I destroyed that document, shredded it, or whatever. That's bypassing the process, and that in fact is illegal.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, Mr. Guité—

    Mr. Charles Guité: Let me finish.

    So I didn't bypass the process of access to information. What I did is that I kept on file a contract, an invoice, and an affidavit or a post-mortem of an event. That's not bypassing access to information.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, Mr. Guité, there are two things. First of all, the Auditor General stated very clearly that in the majority of cases there was no post-mortem. There was no evidence that value was received for money. That was the Auditor General's evidence, and I hope you're not going to try again to discredit her work.

    Secondly, you yourself said you minimized the information on the file. I believe your words were that a general doesn't give away his battle plan to the enemy. So you can hardly now argue that you didn't minimize the information on the file, and that of course would be a clear bypass or an attempt to sidestep the ATI process that citizens use to hold government accountable.

    So what do you have to say about what you did in that regard?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, again, there are about six questions there in your last two minutes, but I'll answer the last question.

    You cannot bypass the ATI process. The ATI process says... I won't quote the act word for word, but if you as an individual request information on a file, I cannot delete or change the file because somebody is asking for access to it. A beautiful example of that was the head of the armed forces a few years ago who lost his job because he tinkered with a file during access to information.

    In regard to another question during your discussion, the Auditor General said it was the majority. The Auditor General looked at how many files, 56? And of those 56 files, how many were files that relate to Chuck Guité prior to 1999 or after 1999? I made the comment again yesterday that if that's the case, then she's talking about 98% of the files being correct.

    I'm not going to start playing with numbers here. I will make the comment again that when I was there, there were audits done. The documents were there; there were observations made; we've addressed them.

    In 2000 there was an audit done, and in 2003 we can't find the files; we can't find the reports; we can't find the documents. Where did they go? I can't comment on that. When I was there, they were there.

À  (1055)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, Mr. Guité, first of all, purging the file after the fact and purging the file before the fact is about the same thing as far as Canadians are concerned.

    Mr. Charles Guité: You can't purge what's not there.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Deliberately not putting documents on the file is as much an evasion of giving evidence of government operations to Canadians as it is to destroy it afterwards. And you have not explained why that would be acceptable.

    Secondly, you know yourself that auditors make extrapolations from an audit field without having to look at every single file, and the Auditor General found in her audit field a pervasive lack of documentation. That's what she found.

    Mr. Charles Guité: On what files? The ones when I was there or the ones after I left?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Both, Mr. Guité, not to mention the other audits that were taken when you were there that also found that documents were not properly there. So this playing with numbers seems to be something you're engaging in.

    But the question is this. We had evidence--and you admitted to this--that you shredded some invoices that might have showed a course of events in a particular file. You paid invoices. Clearly there was some question about them, because the Auditor General found that no work was done. Canadians want to know, Mr. Guité, why you would be paying invoices or destroying invoices on files when the evidence of what actually happened ought to have been more complete, or at least there.

    Mr. Charles Guité: And the question is?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: My question is why did you do it? Why did you pay on files where there was not complete evidence that work was done, and why was there not complete information about what happened on the file?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I used two examples yesterday, and I don't know how many times in the last day and a half I've said that the documents on file were the documents that I decided to put on that file. I did not destroy documents to avoid putting them on file.

    In reference to shredding, I used one example. And that's the only example and the only document, if you want to call it a document, that I shredded. It was an invoice addressed to Mr. Jean Pelletier from a firm. I thought the firm made an error, because it should have been addressed to me.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Guité.

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

    Mrs. Ablonczy referred to these 56 documents that the Auditor General—

    The Chair: No, they were files.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Does Mrs. Ablonczy, and this was over a five-year period, have documents that show which files they were, for what year, and—

Á  (1100)  

    The Chair: Mr. Mills—

    Mr. Dennis Mills: It's a fair question. We've been asking about documents all morning.

    The Chair: I don't think it's a fair question. She is quoting from the Auditor General's report. It's all in the report. The Auditor General also did an analysis about several hundred other files that were analysed by the quick-response team. Mr. Guité, somebody seems to have conveniently forgotten, was part of her audit as well. So Mrs. Ablonczy is making reference to what is in the Auditor General's report, which is a public document. The auditor looked at these files.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I would just ask a very simple question on whether she has a list of the files that had been analysed. And if she doesn't, that's fine.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman, very easily.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If Mr. Mills wants to know the specifics of the audit field used by the Auditor General, then he can get it from the Auditor General's report.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No, you can't. That is not true.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Mills. I told you that it's all in the Auditor General's report, and that is the information that she has provided, too.

    Now, has she provided to us the list of these files?

    A voice: Not yet.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: It's totally false, and you know it.

    The Chair: We have asked, but we have not received the names of these files. They're not in the report.

    We have the quick-response team to come to tell us about the files that they did that she reviewed.

    So there's your information.

    Mr. Tonks, please.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: We don't have it at this point and it's not in the report.

    The Chair: But the summation of her report is in her report. What she found is in her report. I think it was 49% that did not contain the documentation.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Of 56 documents...

    The Chair: Plus the several hundred by the quick-response team as well.

    Mr. Tonks, please.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairperson.

    The Chair: Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis on a point of order.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is following Ms. Ablonczy's exchange with the witness. I wanted to raise the point that considering the witness has claimed his innocence after four separate audits showing mismanagement practices, it's important for you, Mr. Chairperson, to indicate to the witness and all observing that our questions are not a figment of our imagination.

    The Chair: We are aware of that, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I did actually point out yesterday to Mr. Guité when he talked about Mr. Cutler fiddling with the files, I think it was.... That was, according to Mr. Guité, brought up during the discussions during the audit, but Mr. Guité could not explain why there was no reference to that in the final audit. It's a question mark that's still hanging over and that hasn't been addressed.

    Mr. Tonks, eight minutes, please.

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

    Mr. Chairman, in spite of the point of order that I raised with you, I am actually going to ask some questions on the Earnscliffe issue—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I just didn't want—

    The Chair: You don't want me to rule you out of order, I take it.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't realize how deliberately inconsistent I was being.

    Mr. Guité—

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Just a second.

    Mr. Kenney, on a point of order.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm confused. He interrupted Ms. Longfield, who was not asking anything to do with Earnscliffe, and objected to her line of questioning as being irrelevant, and now he's introducing this irrelevant line of questioning.

    The Chair: All right, I think that's an observation, Mr. Kenney. It's not a point of order.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Kenney would be the first to recognize an inconsistency in someone else.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks—

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm sure that he's well qualified.

    The Chair: Order, order.

    Mr. Tonks has the floor, please.

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

    Mr. Guité, in relation to the documentation that you handed out yesterday, and I had made a point of this in the scrum, would you agree that none of that correspondence you provided—or that evidence, if you will—was related to the 1996 period and on, in terms of the sponsorship program, that it was prior to the sponsorship program itself?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Definitely. The dates are back in 1995, if I recall correctly.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Right, but would you agree that none of this discussion with Ms. O'Leary touches in any shape or form the sponsorship program?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, absolutely not. The memos are here: July 24, 1995; June 20; and whatever the other one is.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: But the sponsorship program didn't exist in 1994.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Absolutely not. It had nothing to do with the sponsorship—

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: On a point of order, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I recall yesterday the witness clearly testifying that although the sponsorship file didn't formally begin until the time he just indicated, he actually stated on the record that there were sponsorship activities occurring before the formalization of that program.

    The Chair: That's correct, and it was all out of the unity fund too, I'm sure.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Therefore, the questions are in order.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm just trying to establish that the allegations that were made yesterday were totally unrelated to the sponsorship program, that's all. I had asked the witness to reply to that question. And I appreciate the intervention that's been made by Ms.... by my colleague.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: And I think his answer stands.

Á  (1105)  

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, you have the floor.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —[Inaudible--Editor]—

    The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, Mr. Tonks has the floor.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Guité, yesterday you claimed that Ms. O'Leary intervened on behalf of Earnscliffe to secure research contracts with you. Yet the documents you tabled to back that up, to my satisfaction, fail to show that they did. I think we've established that.

    Would you say it is true, yes or no, that there's no mention of Earnscliffe in the material you provided yesterday?

    Mr. Charles Guité: The material I provided yesterday talks about facts regarding Earnscliffe Research and Communications and the Government of Canada.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Where does it talk about Earnscliffe?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's in the second memo that was tabled yesterday.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, I'm going to try to help you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The author was Bruce Young.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Where does it talk about advertising?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It doesn't talk about advertising. The other memo talks about advertising.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I quote from the material you provided. Ms. O'Leary says explicitly that she wishes the process to be opened up and that “for both Ontario and the rest of the country AMG should feel free to add other firms to the list as well”.

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's in writing. That's exactly what she said.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: You take that as interference.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I do.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Why?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Because it's from a minister's office.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Oh, I see. So it's not the process of opening up that you found challenging, it was where it came from.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The process was already opened up. If we go to the open bidding system, how much more open can you be? Why didn't Ms. O'Leary call those firms and say there's a bid going on, so apply?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: But she wasn't putting forward specific firms.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. But she was specific. She listed the firms.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Yesterday you tabled items related to Canada savings bonds. Are they related or unrelated to the contract for public opinion and communication services that was eventually awarded to Earnscliffe?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Which memo are you talking about?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm talking about the one to Bruce Young that you distributed yesterday.

    Mr. Charles Guité: The Bruce Young memo is not related to advertising.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: What about the other one? The documents really aren't related to the Canada savings bonds issue at all.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Which one, the one to Bruce Young?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

    Mr. Charles Guité: No.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: What about the second one?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Is that the one dated May 30, 1994?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's directly related to the bonds. It refers to the retail debt strategy. If I recall correctly, the Canada savings bonds are issued through that group.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Did you think that was interference in the process?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It sure is.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Could you outline that for me?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I have a memo here from a minister's office listing firms that it wants to be considered and added to the list.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: And you take that as interference.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I sure do.

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Do you have a memo that says you must take these firms?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No. But I received a memo, and at the top it says Office of the Minister of Finance. It lists a bunch of agencies. Some of them you'll recognize. If you want, I'll name them: BCP, Montreal; Pierre Tremblay et Associés, Quebec; McLaren Communications in Toronto; Media Profile here in Ottawa; United in Toronto; The McLaughlin Group in Toronto; Vickers and Bentsen in Toronto; Hawke Communications in New Brunswick; Rudnicki Murphy in Halifax; McKim Communications in Winnipeg; McKay Goettler and Associates; and so forth.

    It goes on to say, “As well, we would like to see the list of the other firms we have been using in theother provinces to see if we should add anyone to the list.” So they want to add some more. To me, it's very clear that if there's going to be a competition, as there was for other departments, and it's on the open bidding system and a minister's office wants to add someone, it should phone that firm and say “There's a bid out there, be aware.”

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I have one last question with regard to the interchange between Goodale and Dingwall. The letter of July 21 from Mr. Dingwall certainly reinforces the point you've made, that no interference should take place. Listen to what he says, Mr. Guité: “My Department has made efforts to inform Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials of the policies. It would be helpful if you could reinforce these efforts”, along with the concerns that had been made. I think that's a pretty clear letter in which the minister was backing you up in terms of the approaches that should be made in an upfront and transparent way. Would you agree with that?

    Mr. Charles Guité: I agree with the comment of the day, and I'm sure it was probably discussed, but—

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Right, so a minister comes forward and says, “I'd like you to do this. Would you consider it?” Your minister backs you up in terms of saying no, this is the process—just as you were backed up with respect to the Earnscliffe issue, I would suggest—

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We're going to cut it off there.

    I'm just going to ask you a couple of questions myself, and we'll wrap up in a couple of minutes, Mr. Guité.

    Yesterday in your opening statement you said you never broke the rules, you didn't break the rules, and now you're talking about two, twenty, or whatever number of contracts being backdated. Is backdating contracts within the rules?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It sure is, sir.

    The Chair: Would you like to tell us which rule it is that gives you the authority to backdate a contract?

    Mr. Charles Guité: It's not a written rule in a book.

    The Chair: Oh--it's not a written rule.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Hang on; let me finish.

    In the contracting regulations I'm sure there's a part...

    Let me finish, please.

    I don't have the contracting regulations in front of me.

    The Chair: You say you follow the rules, but you follow verbal rules or rules in your own head as well as the ones that are written down. Is that what you're saying?

    Mr. Charles Guité: No, no, let me finish.

    I don't have a copy of the contracting regulations, but in the contracting regulations I'm sure there is a chapter in there—I am sure, I am positive—about backdating a contract. Backdating a contract, Mr. Chairman, happens regularly in the Government of Canada, not only by Chuck Guité.

    The Chair: Okay. Let me ask you this question on the retail debt strategy. You said there was a verbal deal back in the fall because there were the Canada savings bonds and the government had just taken over and said my gosh, we've just taken over and we have to get this done, and it was all done verbally. In the springtime, in comes the invoice. Oops, no contract—let's get one and backdate it.

    I can't believe, Mr. Guité, with the retail debt strategy of advertising Canada savings bonds across this country, which would have cost a very significant amount of money, that there weren't interim payments and invoices coming along very, very quickly from the advertising agency that had to pay the television stations, the papers, and everybody else. So I don't believe you when you say that in the springtime an invoice came along and you said oops, no contract—let's get one and backdate it to the fall. Sorry, I just don't quite believe you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, you can't pay an invoice without a contract.

    The Chair: That I agree with.

    Mr. Charles Guité: So how could the Government of Canada send money to the firm you just mentioned without a contract?

    The Chair: You said it was in the springtime. I said I'll bet the invoices were flowing long before the springtime, and therefore I don't believe you.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Well, I'd have to check the file.

    The Chair: This other one, Mr. Guité, is when you talk about absolutely every document being in every file. Isabelle Roy, your assistant—well, she was not your assistant, she was working in the minister's office—came over just as you were leaving, actually, and said everything was run by database; we didn't have documents, we did it all on the database. What do you say to that? Is she wrong? Did she lie?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Madame Isabelle Roy arrived in that group—

    The Chair: Two or three months before you left.

    Mr. Charles Guité: That's right.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: And she said they ran it on a database; they didn't run it on documents.

    Mr. Charles Guité: I have no idea what she's talking about.

    The Chair: Do you say she's wrong?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Absolutely.

    The Chair: Completely? She was lying to us?

    Mr. Charles Guité: What was on the database?

    The Chair: All these verbal decisions.

    Mr. Charles Guité: Absolutely not.

    The Chair: I have one final question. Anything coming out of a minister's office, you say, is political interference. But you didn't get written information out of Mr. Alfonso Gagliano's office; you went there and you got verbal instructions. You went to Mr. Pelletier, you went to Mr. LeFrançois at VIA Rail, and you got verbal instructions rather than a written memo. Was that political interference?

    Mr. Charles Guité: Again, your comment this morning of splitting hairs...there is no splitting of hairs here, Mr. Chairman. Political interference is quite different from political input.

    The Chair: Well, I am at a loss, Mr. Guité. I think we will suspend the meeting now for one hour and resume at 12:15.

    Mr. Guité, you are excused; you may be called back by this committee at a later date.

    At 12:15 we'll resume to deal with the motions that are before the committee. The meeting is suspended.

Á  (1116)  

---

  (1222)  

    The Chair: Order. We're now back in session.

    Basically, I think we have only about three issues to deal with right now—one, a matter of privilege; two, the matter of Marlene Jennings' motion, the notice of which was given on Wednesday, April 21; and three, Tuesday's agenda, where we expected that we'd have the quick response team coming forward, together with Mr. Marshall and Mr. Owen. Mr. Owen is saying that he's not coming without a motion of the committee, so I would hope that we'd deal with that issue as well.

    First is the matter of privilege, and this is actually from the chair.

    I understand, Mr. Mills, that you said on a television channel, while we were at recess, that the chair called Mr. Guité a liar.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: That is what I said.

    The Chair: Can you justify that, Mr. Mills?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Mills will speak to his point.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No, she has a point of order. She can go ahead.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Given that this is a question of privilege that you, as the chair, are bringing up, I don't think you should be in the seat of the chair.

    The Chair: I can vacate the chair and put you in the chair in the meantime.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I listened to Mr. Williams' presentation to the media, or part of it, and he suggested that he did not believe Mr. Guité's testimony. I went on Mike Duffy's show, with Mr. Toews, and I said that this whole scene was reprehensible, that things were being said that weren't true—$100 million being stolen, and on and on and on.

    When the chair is out there accusing witnesses, in this case Mr. Guité, of not telling the truth, I just think the whole thing is... I might have used the word “farcical”, I don't know. But that's what I said.

  (1225)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Jordan.

    Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): This could be potentially a very time-consuming process, but I'm just wondering, up front....

    This didn't take place in the committee room, it didn't take place in Parliament, it didn't take place under the protection of parliamentary privilege, or it wasn't part of the proceedings. It took place out there. I think you have a number of recourses, but I don't think a point of privilege is one of them. I think maybe you could get your lawyer to write him a letter or something.

    Maybe Mr. Walsh could enlighten us.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Madam Chairman, it would appear from what Mr. Mills is saying that the incident in question took place outside the proceedings of this committee. An incident outside the proceedings of this committee could, in some circumstances, constitute the basis for a point of privilege, it's true, but generally speaking, those matters out there don't give rise to privilege unless what happened out there somehow impairs another member from doing his job as a member of Parliament.

    In that way, you might be able to say that it constitutes a breach of privilege. Or if it's a comment that brings the proceedings into contempt, it might be characterized as a breach of privilege. But generally speaking, those comments outdoors, as you know, are out there in the jungle, and there are other recourses available to deal with them.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you.

    Mr. Lastewka and then Mr. Toews.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I want to check the blues on this—I have my staff now checking the blues on a number of remarks by the chairman—but I do believe you said in your remarks, “I don't believe you”.

    As I said, I will check the blues, but you being the chair and doing a summary, that's a real nice way of saying, “Well, the last ten hours of testimony, Mr. Guité... e don't believe you.” I think you have become a judge and jury. This has been a great concern of mine for the last three or four weeks, and I too will speak out that you have been a bit too partisan—

    Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, Madam Chair, this is a specific issue we're dealing here, not the work of the chair for the past month.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Then I'll leave it to your remark of “I don't believe you”.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you, Mr. Williams.

    Mr. Lastewka, I would ask you to keep your remarks to the specific point of privilege that has been raised by Mr. Williams. If you have issues about other aspects of the chair's conduct during proceedings, you can bring it up at another time and in another forum.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I will do so.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you. Do you have anything else you wish to add on the question of privilege?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: No, Madam Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you.

    Mr. Toews.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I have a few comments to make.

    I too heard the chairman say he didn't believe the witness. I don't think that is a secret. I was standing there being interviewed by Mr. Duffy, and Mr. Mills came forward and basically made his comments. I can confirm that. I might add, I didn't tell the chair that.

    I didn't rat on anybody here, Dennis.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Mills, please.

    Mr. Vic Toews: So the point I'm making is that this was obviously communicated over the television, as opposed to any communication between me and the chair.

    I was, though, a little surprised at the conclusion you drew that the chair was in any way suggesting he was a liar. What he said is he didn't believe him. We make statements often about whether or not we believe certain witnesses--we find it credible, we don't find it credible--but I think to impute that kind of meaning to the chair was a little over the top. I thought at the time you should have exercised maybe a little more caution in your choice of words.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Be very brief, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Listen, I'll withdraw the unparliamentary word, but I stand by repeating the fact that the chairman went out there and said he did not believe the witness. I think it's totally incorrect for the chair to be constantly going outside this room and making these judgments in a way that denigrates the whole parliamentary process.

  (1230)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Marlene Jennings): Thank you, Mr. Mills. I'm sure that the chairman, Mr. Williams, appreciates your withdrawal of the word “liar” as unparliamentary.

    I would just add that it behoves all the members of this committee to perhaps use a little more caution in the weight that they give to witnesses' testimonies, piece by piece, and perhaps attempt to wait until we've heard all witnesses on the entire matter before we begin to draw firm conclusions. Otherwise we could be in a position where we say one witness is credible, and then another witness comes in, and now suddenly we're saying the first witness is no longer credible.

    That's a word of caution. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings.

    I should have thought to pass the chair to you before I raised it, so I'm glad that you did.

    Speaking to the wider issue than Mr. Lastewka was raising, I perhaps should explain that it's the responsibility of the chair to run the meeting in a neutral fashion so that both sides have opportunities to ask questions of the witnesses.

    We are the committee of accountability. We're dealing with facts and hindsight, we're not dealing with public policy.

    And I know that Mr. Desrochers has some travel plans, so we are going to move on and we can discuss that at a later time.

    A very short comment, Mr. Lastewka.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I have talked to Mr. Walsh and I have talked to other legal people, because I have had this concern for a number of weeks. I know that you are in a difficult position as a chair, but I am really concerned when we admonish a witness from the chair, never mind from either side.

    I was leaving this aside for another day to talk briefly on it.

    The Chair: We'll leave it aside for another day. Perhaps we should discuss it at the steering committee.

    Anyway, a notice of motion by Madam Jennings dated April 21, 2004, has been circulated in both official languages. It says:

Pursuant to S.O. 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 Standing Committee on Public Accounts on February 10, 2004, this Committee call the Auditor General of Canada to appear on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano to appear on Thursday, April 29, 2004, and Mr. Ranald Quail to appear on Friday, April 30, 2004.

    I have some information to give you before we get into deliberation on that. First of all, we're talking about calling the Auditor General of Canada, but you have to know that the Auditor General is actually out of the country; therefore we would have to request that she return to Canada in order to appear here on Wednesday. It's not the case that she is just down the road and can walk up the hill. She is out of the country.

    Regarding Mr. Gagliano, I have a letter from his lawyer, which I've had translated into both official languages. We'll circulate that letter, but it basically says that his lawyer has had an accident. He underwent surgery on Sunday, April 18, and is scheduled for a further operation again tomorrow, April 23, 2004. He's asking that we set a date for his appearance that's convenient to everybody.

    Regarding Mr. Quail, on Friday, April 30, we adopted a motion by the steering committee, the steering committee report—

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: No, I'm just talking at the moment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I have something to add. It was agreed that we wouldn't meet on Friday. Why are we discussing hearing a witness on April 30^th?

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, I'm talking at the moment, Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Don't get upset.

[English]

    The Chair: If you're in a rush to get out of here, we can keep you all day, or you can listen to the chair.

    We adopted a motion that beginning April 19 the committee will sit according to the following schedule: alternate Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. There was a special exception made for today, Friday, April 23, in order to meet Mr. Guité, but it was decided the committee would not meet on Fridays.

    Therefore, Madam Jennings, I'm going to say at this time that that portion of your motion is out of order, unless a notice comes forward to amend the schedule of the committee so that we meet on Fridays. I believe it was your motion to the steering committee that we do not sit on Fridays, except for today, that was adopted.

    So we have three parts to your motion. I'm going to rule Mr. Quail's appearance out of order. I want you to be cognizant that Mr. Alfonso Gagliano's lawyer cannot appear next Thursday, as he is having surgery, and that the Auditor General would have to be requested to return to this country in order to appear.

    A voice: Where is she?

    The Chair: I believe she's on her way to Moscow.

    Madam Jennings.

  (1235)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

    I appreciate your bringing to the committee's attention the Auditor General's absence. I learned about that just before coming to the committee to debate the motion, so I was prepared to change the motion. I also appreciate the information regarding Mr. Alfonso Gagliano's counsel.

    So I will amend my motion and stipulate that this committee call Mr. Ran Quail to appear on Wednesday, April 28, 2004, and if necessary at the morning session of Thursday, April 29, 2004; and that the Auditor General be called to appear before the committee on Monday, May 3, 2004.

    The Chair: Very good. Okay.

    Are you suggesting, Madam Jennings, we have no meeting on Thursday afternoon?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. The clerks and KPMG have the list of witnesses.

    The Chair: The clerks tell me that the amendment is in order. Without reading out the times, basically what we're saying is that Wednesday afternoon--because we meet only on Wednesdays--it would be Mr. Quail; Thursday morning would be Mr. Quail; Thursday afternoon would be someone else, who we haven't determined at this point in time; and then the Auditor General would be called on Monday, May 3.

    Is she going to be back by Monday the third? Do you know, Madam Jennings?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My information is that the Auditor General is absent next week. I believe there's usually someone from the Auditor General's office attending all committee meetings, so perhaps that person can come forward and clarify.

    The Chair: I see someone from the Auditor General's office indicating. Can they come forward and tell us when the Auditor General intends to return?

    Can you tell us your name and your position with the Auditor General's office, please?

[Translation]

    

    Mr. Jacques Maziade (Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, my name is Jacques Maziade and I'm a Parliamentary Liaison Officer at the Office of the Auditor General.

[English]

    The Chair: Do you know when the Auditor General returns to Canada?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Maziade: According to the information that I received this morning, the Auditor General will be back from her trip tomorrow.

[English]

    The Chair: Well, that's not the information I received. I heard she was on her way to Moscow tomorrow.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Maziade: She was actually supposed to spend the week in Russia, but she decided to come back tomorrow.

[English]

    The Chair: Is that confirmed?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Maziade: I could confirm that more officially, but the information that was brought to my attention this morning is to that effect.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, given that there still is not clear indication as to whether or not the Auditor General would be available to appear before the committee on Wednesday, April 28, I would leave my amendment in place, as is, because then we'll be assured she will be back.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Okay. So the amendment is that we meet with Ran Quail Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, that the other witnesses continue on, and that the Auditor General be called on Monday, May 3.

    Mr. Toews, did you have something to say?

    Mr. Vic Toews: I do. First of all—

    The Chair: Oh, Mr. Kenney is actually first. I'm sorry.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I haven't had a chance to—

    The Chair: Yes, okay. I'm sorry about that, Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

    Members may be wondering... First of all, the names that appear in my motion are all names that appear on the master list of witnesses and are witnesses who have appeared before us.

    Since the appearance of these three witnesses, I think every one of us at some point, hearing subsequent testimony where the testimony we heard from these three witnesses was either called into question, into doubt, or contradicted outright, has said we're going to need to hear from the original witnesses again at some point. Even yesterday and today, at points of Mr. Guité's testimony, I think we heard it from opposition members and from government members.

    Given that, I feel that with the body of testimony we've had, we do in fact—at least I know I do, and I've confirmed this with quite a few of my colleagues in my caucus—have questions that we wish to put to these witnesses: to the Auditor General, to Mr. Quail, and ultimately to Mr. Gagliano, when it's convenient for him to appear again with his counsel.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings. I'm consumed here with other things.

    Mr. Kenney, please.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, first off, I agree that the three witnesses listed must at some point appear at the committee, together with a number of other witnesses whose testimony has been contradicted—for instance, David Dingwall, Allan Cutler, Huguette Tremblay, and many others. But what I don't quite understand in this motion, Mr. Chairman...

    I think it's fair to say that the committee in the past couple of weeks has been holding its deliberations in a very professional and cooperative fashion, that we have allowed ourselves to work on a consensual basis, with a witness list that in part was crafted by our expert forensic auditor consultants. Indeed, it was a week ago yesterday that we had a full-day in-camera planning meeting, where we discussed at some length the witness lists, our strategy, and the calendar. We received advice from KPMG, for whose services, I gather, we're paying considerable fees.

    A voice: Fair but considerable.

    The Chair: They're not free.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, my point is simply this. I don't disagree that we want to recall these three witnesses, together with many others, but the question is when to call them. I think it's pretty clearly premature to call any witness a second time until we've heard from every important witness a first time.

    I'll remind you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll remind Madam Jennings, that depending on how you count it, there are about half a dozen critical ad agencies that we need to hear from—and that Mr. Mills has been pushing for us to hear from, and quite rightfully so. We've only heard from one of them, who was not, frankly, very helpful.

    Now, before we call back, for instance, the Auditor General to comment on her report, before we've been able to properly interrogate the ad agencies who were at the centre of this, before we call back Mr. Gagliano before we've heard from other people in the public service—people who worked for him, people who were in his ministerial office—and before we start calling witnesses back a second time, which could then require calling them back yet again, a third time, following further testimony and further potential contradictions, I think we should proceed in a detached, professional, and systematic manner, such as the one we agreed on consensually a week ago yesterday, guided in part by our consultants. We should reserve recalling witnesses until the end of this process, when we've heard from everybody else, so that we have the whole body of testimony, the whole body of evidence, in front of us.

    My recollection from our witness discussion last week, Chair, was that we had over 150 potential witnesses on the master witness list. This was built collaboratively. We may choose not to call each and every one of those people. Many of them, though, still have critical testimony to bring. So I simply do not understand....

    Let me just close with this. About three weeks ago, when Madam Jennings began introducing motions of this nature to try to introduce particular witnesses on particular dates, at that point this committee broke down from working professionally and consensually into more rigid partisanship. I think that was unfortunate. We owe Canadians better, which is why we have an obligation to do this consensually, to take expert advice, and to do it systematically.

    You know, Madam Jennings is not naïve. She knows full well how we would—

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Don't impugn motives.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I'm not. I'm imputing intelligence on her part, Mr. Speaker, when I say she's not naïve.

    The Chair: Oh, come on, Mr. Kenney, that's not appropriate.

    An hon. member: Yes, that's not appropriate.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Sorry. I take it back. I withdraw.

    Mr. Chairman, I'm simply making the point that I don't want to go back to where we were three weeks ago, but I have to say, as an opposition member, when I see the key government lead, if you will, committee member here bringing forward a specific schedule, pushing aside the master witness list that we had agreed on, and the schedule that was developed by KPMG, calling back certain select people--not all contradicted witnesses, only three particular witnesses--then what I see here, inevitably, of course, is a committee agenda being tailored to an election call agenda.

    So I just plead, Mr. Chair--and I'm not being overly partisan here--that there is a political reality on the table, and that's what this motion reflects; let's be honest.

    The Chair: All right.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I would only ask that for the sake of the integrity of these hearings and the confidence of the people of Canada in this inquiry we proceed professionally, consensually, with the advice we've been given, and in a fashion we've agreed on, rather than trying to jam through a particular schedule that is frankly not sensible, given that many of these witnesses will have to be called a third time at the end of the hearings.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kenney.

    I do have to say we have a witness lined up for next week who would have to be bumped by Madame Jennings' motion. He is leaving the country for quite some time; therefore, we would not have the privilege of hearing from him.

    An hon. member: Who is that?

    The Chair: The witness is Mr. John Hayter from Vickers & Benson.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: When is he leaving the country?

    The Chair: He's only available—

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Because you told us that the Auditor General... So I'd like precision on it.

    The Chair: He's only available on Tuesday and Wednesday.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: In that case—

    The Chair: Therefore, we have.... Of course, the committee wanted a QRT. This is a situation we have where, as Mr. Kenney pointed out, these people are working diligently to line up the people in a satisfactory order. Then the other day we wanted a QRT team in as quickly as possible. Okay, shuffle the schedule again, and we have QRT coming in on Tuesday afternoon. We have someone else Tuesday morning; therefore, we scheduled Mr. Hayter from Tuesday to Wednesday because he was available Tuesday and Wednesday. Now you say push him off the schedule.

    I would just prefer that we leave it to the people who are in communication with these people, but the committee is the master of its own destiny. It's not the staff; I fully agree. I'm just saying remember you're making their work more difficult, and you're making our work less effective.

    Madame Jennings—

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I—

    The Chair: No. It's Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Lastewka, Mr. Mills, and then Madame Jennings, and that will be it.

    Do you want on there, Mr. Toews?

    Mr. Vic Toews: I was.

    The Chair: You were, actually. Okay, it's Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Lastewka, Mr. Mills, Mr. Toews, a wrap-up by Madame Jennings, and that will be it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I agree with my Conservative colleagues. I think that there are still many witnesses who could be heard before the witnesses mentioned by Ms. Jennings are called back.

    So far, we've heard only one representative of an advertising agency. The firm that we hired to look for witnesses is fairly important. At any rate, we're not here to do cross-examinations, we're here to ask questions. If some people are coming to the conclusion that there have been some contradictions, that's their decision. Personally, Mr. Chairman, I think that only at the end of our work will we truly be able to determine whether there have been any contradictions. I would therefore ask that you simply proceed as planned and not call back witnesses who have already been heard. We are a committee working for the future, not in the past.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Lastewka.

  (1250)  

[English]

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that by next week we will have had at least three advertising firms in. We have the quick response team--

    An hon. member: — [Inaudible--Editor]—

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Are you finished?

    The Chair: Just a second here. Mr. Lastewka has the floor. Order.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: We've now had the chance to have Mr. Guité here. We had Mr. Quail and Minister Alfonso Gagliano, and we've had the Auditor General.

    When the Toronto Star can zero in on what they thought was happening four weeks ago—

    An hon. member: —[Inaudible--Editor]

    The Chair: Order. Order, please.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Is it my turn?

    We have taken four weeks and we have heard a number of witnesses' testimony. My thought was very clear: that once we've had those three advertising firms and the quick response team we should have the people back who we think are at the centre of this, such that we could better ask questions going forward, rather than trying to delay.

    I want to make myself very clear on this: we should be getting down to the root cause of the problem and, in line with our mandate, be recommending what we should be doing going forward. That's why I support Madame Jennings.

    The Chair: We are going to limit this discussion, because we're going to wrap up at one o'clock. If we don't get a vote by one, we're out of here, because people have planes to catch--

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I would like to propose a friendly amendment to Ms. Jennings' motion, and it is that we bring in Vickers & Benson on Tuesday morning.

    The Chair: No, we have somebody else scheduled for Tuesday morning.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No, we don't.

    The Chair: Yes, we do.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, let me propose my motion. I'm trying to propose something here in line with Mr. Kenney's thinking, that we bring in Vickers & Benson on Tuesday. Then we have... who was it after that?

    The Chair: This is very good, Mr. Mills, but we have some very competent people who have people coming here for Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, and Wednesday afternoon; it was all scheduled. Now here we are having this debate around the table—

    Mr. Dennis Mills: But we're trying to agree with Mr. Kenney's presentation here.

    The Chair: No, no. Mr. Kenney said let the people do their work. That was the essence of Mr. Kenney's position. Madam Jennings introduced a motion, which she amended, for finding out some additional information. Now you're trying to amend it again, and you're running into a conflict with what the people have already done. Are we going to allow these competent people to do their jobs—

    Mr. Dennis Mills: No.

    The Chair: You're not going to allow them to do the job?

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Give them direction.

    The Chair: I'm going to go now to Mr. Toews, then we're going to wrap this up with Madam Jennings, and then we'll have a vote.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, I'm a little concerned here and indeed somewhat puzzled. A few weeks ago we brought in KPMG; we've retained them. I'm sure it was a fair contract, and I'm sure the taxpayers of Canada are paying good tax dollars to retain their professional services. I have been very impressed with everything I have seen of KPMG so far in respect of their work. It's not just the listing of witnesses but also the questions that have been put forward and suggestions that have been made. I've been very, very impressed.

    I know how difficult it is to put together a trial, for example, that lasts two or three weeks. It is extremely difficult in terms of getting the evidence all in place, making sure the evidence flows properly, and making sure we as judges of fact can in fact follow what is going on.

    Now, I've been very impressed, as I say, with the work that is being done, and I want to just bring to your attention the comment Madam Jennings made just this morning when she took the chair when you had the matter of privilege. She said we should hear from all of the witnesses before we passed judgment. But what Madam Jennings is now doing means she's already passed judgment. It's a private judgment, but it's quite apparent, in that she says it's instrumental that we hear from three individuals, Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Quail, and Ms. Fraser. She's come to a conclusion before we've heard from all the witnesses; she has in fact passed judgment.

    Now, she hasn't explained this motion she's bringing forward other than to state the fact that we've heard contradictory evidence. That is the normal course in any proceeding, that there is going to be evidence we choose not to believe, there's evidence we believe, and there's evidence that contradicts. Each witness brings his or her own facts and point of view to the table. What we do is we hear from all of the witnesses, we think for a little bit about what the witnesses have said as a collective....

    And I think, Mr. Chair, the memo that came forward from the library staff in that respect was very helpful, helping us digest mounds of information in a coherent fashion. That's all part of the process. So we have KPMG and we have the Library of Parliament staffer, who did such an excellent job...

    I'm trying to explain that what has been happening so far is in fact—

  (1255)  

    The Chair: It's time we were wrapping this up.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I understand, but I understand that what has been happening so far has been handled correctly. Why do this now, Mr. Chair, other than because of some kind of political agenda at work here? That's the only explanation we can see.

    The Chair: Order.

    Madam Jennings will wrap it up.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. The only thing that I have to say is, one, I did not agree, nor did any member on this committee agree, with the suggested witness list, the order of the witnesses, and the dates of the witnesses.

    Secondly, it's my motion bringing Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Guité to appear before this committee on specific dates that has allowed this committee's work to move forward.

    Finally, Mr. Chair, I don't wish this to be a reproach to you, but the information regarding the fact that Vickers and Benson had been scheduled to appear on Tuesday morning, and the individual or the representative was going to be out of the country as of the end of the day on Wednesday, was information that would have been appreciated—as would the information about the Auditor General's absence and the letter from Mr. Gagliano's legal counsel to show why some of the dates of my motion would not work. At that point, I could have amended the motion to take into account all of that information and not part of it.

    I would ask that the question be called.

    The Chair: Before that, I'll only say that I found out about Vickers & Benson before the meeting started at 12:15. I didn't have that information myself, Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. I'm talking about after you introduced my motion, you went on to explain that Mr. Gagliano's counsel had sent a letter.

    The Chair: I had it translated and available today.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm saying that when you began to give the information about the Auditor General and Mr. Gagliano's counsel, you already had the information about Mr. Benson, whether you got it two minutes before the meeting began or not.

    Question, please.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: No, actually I got it....

    I'm going to call the question.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Point of order.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You can't do a point of order.

    The Chair: No, the question has been called. Are you ready for the motion?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You can't do a point of order.

    The Chair: The question has been called. I've called the question.

    Listen to the question and the motion so that you know what it is and you know what it does. The motion will be, with the normal preamble, that we have Mr. Ran Quail on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning. There will be no meeting on Friday. Mr. Alfonso Gagliano is not going to be called, as per the original motion.

    Am I correct in saying that, Madam Jennings?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

    The Chair: The Auditor General will be called for Monday, May 3. That will mean that Mr. Hayter from Vickers & Benson will not appear before this committee. Are we aware of that?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But you have Wednesday.

    The Chair: On Wednesday afternoon it's Mr. Quail.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Then do Mr. Quail on Thursday.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: We're meeting for six hours on Thursday, are we not?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. Then we vote on this the way it is. We vote the way my amendment is. The question has been called.

    The Chair: Order, please.

    I'm either going to adjourn the meeting because time is up or I have one minute to go.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Time is up.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The question is called.

    The Chair: I would prefer.... Well, I'll call the question. All those in favour of having Mr. Quail on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning and the Auditor General on Monday, May 3....

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie): Mr. Chairman, can we have a recorded vote?

[English]

    The Chair: You want a recorded vote. Okay, we wish it to be a recorded vote. This is on the amended motion.

    Mr. Toews, you have a clarification.

    Mr. Vic Toews: It's not a point of order. I only want to know what the time is.

    The Chair: The question is called. It was called before the meeting will adjourn. It means that we'll have it.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 7)

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.