PACC Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 29, 2004
| ¿ | 0905 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)) |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin (As Individual) |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston) |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston) |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans) |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC) |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| ¿ | 0935 |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| ¿ | 0945 |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1000 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
| À | 1010 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1015 |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1020 |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1025 |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1030 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1035 |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1040 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| À | 1045 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
| À | 1050 |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
| À | 1055 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Á | 1100 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1105 |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Hon. Shawn Murphy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pierre Leduc (Counsel to Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin, As Individual) |
|
The Chair |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons) |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rob Walsh |
|
The Chair |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
The Chair |
|
Pierre Leduc |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Dennis Mills |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
Mr. Peter MacKay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, April 29, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0905)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good morning, everybody.
The orders of today are pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), chapter 3, “The Sponsorship Program”, chapter 4, “Advertising Activities”, and chapter 5, “Management of Public Opinion Research”, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on February 10, 2004.
Our witness today is, as an individual, Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin.
Bonjour, monsieur Gosselin. The first thing I'm going to do is ask you to take the oath. The Bible is right there. If you can take the oath, that would be appreciated. You could pick up the Bible and read the statement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin (As Individual) : The evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing than the truth, so help me God.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We have some points for you. I'm going to ask the clerk to read them en français.
¿ (0910)
[Translation]
| The refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury. |
That comes from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 862. You are appearing before us as an individual this morning.
Did you discuss or have any meetings with any employees of the Government of Canada, any members of this Committee, or any former members of the government in preparation of your report before coming to this meeting?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, I did.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston): Also, has legal advice been provided or paid for by the authorization of any official of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, or any other government department or agency?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Unfortunately not.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup.
Monsieur Gosselin, I believe you have an opening statement. We'll turn the floor over to you to present your statement.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just have one question. While reading the “blues” of the Committee meeting held on Monday, April 19, I noticed that you said that I had been summoned to appear at that meeting. That is not correct. I was not summoned to appear on Monday, April 19. I was only called to appear on Friday of last week. Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, to correct the record in that regard?
[English]
The Chair: Yes. I believe you were actually summoned to appear last Friday. A summons, of course, means that you have no option, that you are bound to appear. However, the date sometimes has to be changed to accommodate the schedule of the committee.
Monsieur Thibault.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Monsieur le président, on the question by me in the House, it was pointed out that the clerks had been unable to find the address of Mr. Gosselin, so he had not been invited to appear prior to what he says was last Friday. I assume that was the date initially.
The Chair: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think this is a very important clarification. If someone comes of their own volition, it's much different from if they're compelled to come or if they've been summoned to come. I think we should make that distinction.
The Chair: The clerk will tell us exactly what transpired.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Elizabeth Kingston): Mr. Chairman, thank you
As I believe I explained to the committee last week or the week before, we have been making attempts to contact all the heads of the ad agencies since about mid-March. We had been unsuccessful in contacting Mr. Gosselin. We'd been trying to contact him for several weeks without any success. When the committee issued summonses for the heads of three ad agencies, we believed we had an address for him, which turned out to be incorrect. We were not able to determine that until just before the meeting time, which is why there is some misunderstanding about the meeting of Monday, April 19, I believe, to which Mr. Gosselin refers. So he is correct in stating that he never did get notice of the committee's desire to have him appear on April 19, because of the difficulties we were having in contacting him.
The Chair: Okay.
Monsieur Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans): Mr. Chairman, in answer to a question put to him by our clerk, Mr. Gosselin responded honestly that he had discussed the matter we are considering with employees of the government or members of this Committee. I'm sure that my colleagues on all sides of the House would like to know with whom Mr. Gosselin discussed this matter. His answer to the question was “Yes”.
[English]
The Chair: All right. Perhaps I'll just pose that question.
Before I do that, I meant to introduce the two lawyers who are with Mr. Gosselin, Madame Josée Gamache and Mr. Pierre Leduc. According to our normal practice, all questions will be addressed to Monsieur Gosselin. If you wish to consult with your legal counsel, you may do so at any time. If your counsel wish to advise you at any time, they may do so, but the questions will not be addressed to them, neither will they be speaking to the committee. They can only speak to and advise you.
You answered that you had discussed the matter. Can you tell us who you were talking to and when?
¿ (0915)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I got in touch with Mr. Paul Lauzon the day before yesterday. I also contacted Mr. Charles Guité yesterday and the day before yesterday. I contacted other persons as well, who are neither members of this Committee nor federal public servants. I believe it was important in my particular case—and you will understand why later on—because of the nature of the files and the way those files were handled—to have as much information as possible in order that my presentation today or my appearance here is as helpful as possible to Committee members. So, I contacted these individuals to obtain the information that I needed.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Could you please tell us who Paul Lauzon is?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, certainly. Paul Lauzon worked… Is the question addressed to me?
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry. As you can see, I was tied up talking to the law clerk. Again, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Thank you. Mr. Paul Lauzon worked under the direction of Mr. Charles Guité. The reason I called him is that there was a new agency selection for sponsorship management in 2002, if I'm not mistaken—Mr. Lauzon did not remember the exact date—and I wanted to know how many agencies had been invited to participate in the competition, how many had been selected, how many had been screened in by the selection board, how many had qualified, and finally, what Gosselin Public Relations' ranking had been. That is when he told me that Gosselin Public Relations had ranked first in that selection process.
[English]
The Chair: When you talked to Mr. Guité in the last two days, did you discuss a plan of presentation or set out a way you would answer questions to this committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, Mr. Chairman. I discussed two things with Mr. Guité.
First, I wanted to get some clarification of the management component of sponsorships. As we will be explaining a little later, with a sponsorship, there is the sponsorship per se, the commission, and amounts associated with sponsorship operations, which are often professional fees. I wanted to get some additional information about two or three contracts that I had been responsible for managing, for which the work had actually been performed by other communications firms, but that had gone through us because those particular firms did not have a contract with the department. So, those amounts are obviously added to the column for professional fees, where you see everything that was paid to Gosselin and Associates or to Gosselin Public Relations. I wanted to get some additional information about that.
Second, Mr. Guité wanted copies of newspaper articles that appeared last week. Because I had them, I made some photocopies and took them to him.
Those are the two things I discussed with Mr. Guité.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
We're not going to get into a long discussion of what Mr. Gosselin has said. That was just for clarification for the committee, to find out the interaction he had with Mr. Guité and others who worked for the public service, just so we understand that there was no collusion or collaboration in their stories. That's important for us to know.
You have a point of order, Mr. Desrochers.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): No, this is not a point of order; it's simply a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gosselin has just told us that he discussed certain files with Mr. Guité. I would like to know whether those files are some of the ones discussed in the Auditor General's Report—in other words, if they are the specific files in which Gosselin Communications was involved.
[English]
The Chair: When your turn comes, you can pose that question to him.
Mr. MacKay.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Gosselin said, and I stand to be corrected, that among those he spoke to, including Mr. Guité, were “other persons”. I take your caution that we won't get into what those discussions were, at this point, but I wonder if we could have Mr. Gosselin clearly indicate, for the record, who those other persons were. If he felt it was important to mention other persons, I think we should know who they are.
¿ (0920)
The Chair: Monsieur Gosselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I am pleased to answer that question. I contacted Bernard Thiboutot, who is the former Vice-President of Gosselin and Associates' Quebec office. I also contacted Paul Turpin, who is the former Vice-President of the Ottawa Office of Gosselin and Associates and Gosselin Public Relations. Because I have few files in my possession, I wanted to discuss the different files with them.
In fact, Paul Turpin was kind enough to send me a diskette with a number of documents that you will find in the appendix this morning. It is thanks to him that I was able to find that documentation.
I also got in touch with Claude Hamelin, the Director of the Casino Lac Leamy “Sound of Light” show in Hull, asking whether my recollection was correct, and whether it was true that the RCMP had participated in one of the events for the Sound of Light” show. I'll come back to that later, but I wanted in this case to get more information about the nature of the sponsorship we had been involved in with them.
Those are the only persons I spoke to.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup. We'll turn the floor back to you, Monsieur Gosselin, to read your opening statement, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am very pleased to appear before you this morning.
I was the founding President and sole shareholder of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc., a federal company created in 1992. The company built its reputation on the quality of its services and the professionalism of its craftspeople. It became a supplier to the Government of Canada as soon as it was created, and among my clients were such departments as Industry Canada, Public Works, and Environment Canada. Throughout the period during which my company was awarded contracts under the Sponsorship Program—specifically, from April 1997 to September 30, 1998—the head office of the company was never in Quebec, but rather, in Ontario, at 130 Albert Street, in Ottawa.
Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc. was an integrated communications firm; that means that it provided to the 15 or so clients it served a full range of communication services: strategic planning, writing, artistic creation, graphic design, media relations, public relations, crisis management, event management and, of course, sponsorship management. So, we were a communications firm, as opposed to an advertising agency. On October 1, 1998, all the assets of my company were sold to a numbered company, a subsidiary of Groupaction Marketing Inc., operating under the name Gosselin Public Relations.
To make things simpler, in the course of my testimony today, I will use the name Gosselin and Associates to refer to my company for the period from April 1997 to September 30, 1998, and will use the name Gosselin Public Relations to refer to the company that belonged to Groupaction, starting on October 1, 1998.
This morning, I am appearing as the former Chief Executive Officer of Gosselin and Associates and as a former employee of Gosselin Public Relations. I'm sure you understand that I am not authorized to speak for Groupaction, although I will answer all your questions to the best of my ability.
In paragraph 3.17, chapter 3, of her report, the Auditor General states, and I quote: “We were informed that the Program was promoted in Quebec but not elsewhere in Canada.” She implies here that outside of Quebec, there were no sponsorships by the Government of Canada. As far as we are concerned, the Sponsorship Program was not aimed exclusively at Quebec.
From the Ottawa office of Gosselin and Associates, we managed dozens of sponsorship projects outside of Quebec. Here are a few examples: the Canadian Tulip Festival, the Tree Canada Foundation, Rendez-vous Canada, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Inter-university Athletic Union, the Francophone Federation of British Columbia, the Franco-Ontarian Festival, the Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival, to cite only those examples of sponsorship projects.
In fact, from a summary analysis…
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Gosselin, can you slow down a little bit for our interpretation, please?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Okay.
[Translation]
I'll be able to breathe a little better. Thank you very much.
In fact, from a summary analysis, it appears that two thirds of the amounts allocated under the Sponsorship Program to events managed by Gosselin and Associates were for events outside of Quebec.
In paragraph 3.35, the Auditor General states, and I quote: “We believe that none of the agencies was selected properly…”. I believe that statement is inaccurate. As far as Gosselin and Associates is concerned, the firm received sponsorship management contracts only after a selection process. Was it a good process or the best possible process? I am not in a position to judge, but there certainly was a selection process.
In the same sentence, the Auditor General goes on to say: “…in many cases, there is little evidence of the value the Crown received.”
As regards Gosselin and Associates, I want to assure Committee members that every sponsorship project entrusted to us was carried out in accordance with the client's expectations, and with the rules stipulated in the contract. Public Works issued a contract for every project and every contract had a number assigned by the Department.
As far as our procedures are concerned, every sponsorship project was the subject of an agreement between ourselves and the organizer of the sponsored event, in which were clearly set out the visibility requirements to be met in exchange for the sponsorship. There was a detailed report prepared for every project. To my knowledge, except for limited sponsorships, the only exception to that rule was the sponsorship awarded to L'Information essentielle, the president of which, Mr. Robert Guy Scully, systematically refused to sign a contract with us. Public Works was informed of that and asked that we depart from our normal procedures in this specific case.
In paragraph 3.43, the Auditor General asserts, and I quote:
| Communications agencies were paid significant commissions by CCSB to simply deliver cheques to the corporations. |
Once again, the Auditor General is making a generality that does not apply to Gosselin and Associates.
In paragraph 3.68, the Auditor General writes, and I quote:
| Absence of visibility plans. Almost half the files in our sample contained no visibility plan… |
Again, we see this as too general a statement, one which also casts doubt on the professionalism of all agencies that received sponsorship contracts. A list detailing the delinquent files would have been more appropriate, in our opinion.
As regards Gosselin and Associates, acting on our own initiative, we developed an agreement in the summer of 1997 that we asked all organizers of sponsored events to sign. You will in fact find a copy of that agreement in Appendix 1, along with the name of the event, which you have in both French and English in Appendices 1 and 2.
¿ (0925)
[English]
The Chair: If I can just interrupt there, these documents are primarily in French, with some English. If you want to pick them up, you can get them.
Do we have enough copies?
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): They aren't in both languages, but there is a pile there and you can simply go and pick them up if you wish.
[English]
The Chair: I cannot distribute them, but if you want to pick one up, you can help yourself.
As I mentioned, copies of the opening statement are being made, and they will be deposited at the back of the room when they're available.
Mr. Gosselin, my apologies for the interruption.
¿ (0930)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the type of contract we always used and what the Auditor General should have found in Public Works' files regarding the sponsorship projects run by Gosselin and Associates. To my knowledge, the same management practice remained in effect after the assets of Gosselin and Associates were sold to Groupaction, at least as long as I was in the employ of Gosselin Public Relations—in other words, until the summer of 2001.
In paragraph 3.69, the Auditor General writes, and I quote:
| Little documentation of what was delivered. There was little evidence that any communications agencies had analyzed the results of sponsored events in our sample. |
In our opinion, the sample was probably too small to warrant such a general statement. As regards Gosselin and Associates, again, we always provided clients with two copies of a report detailing the visibility components, analyzing the results achieved in relation to the objectives, and making recommendations.
Perhaps now we could talk about sponsorships as a communications tool. Sponsorship is in fact an outstanding multimedia strategy used by thousands of businesses and governments in order to position their products, programs or services. And, goodness knows, it must be effective, since year after year, billions of dollars are spent on sponsorships across the globe.
Doing away with the Government of Canada's Sponsorship Program is not necessarily the best solution, in our view. In Quebec and Canada, there were, are and always will be cultural, sporting and recreational events whose survival depends on sponsorship, whether it is private or public or a combination of the two. The federal contribution can, of course, take the form of a grant, but it's a matter of determining whether that is really the best way to control public funds.
At Gosselin and Associates, and subsequently at Gosselin Public Relations, this is the process—which I would like to outline very briefly—that was followed as soon as the Department of Public Works sent us a sponsorship project along with a numbered contract. You can find a sample contract issued by the Department of Public Works in Appendix 3. I believe the sample provided is the first contract that Gosselin and Associates ever received. I believe that was on April 28, 1997.
First of all, when we would receive a contract, one or more communications advisors would be designated to handle the project. We would open up a new file. Then we would analyze the documentation we had received and contact the event organizer to obtain as much information as possible about the purpose of the sponsorship.
In Appendices 4 and 5, you have the French and English versions of the procedure followed at Gosselin Public Relations, which was developed and implemented by us at Gosselin and Associates. So, we had a procedure in place for sponsorship management that was followed by all project officers.
Our job was to negotiate an agreement with the event organizer in which the obligations of the parties would be clearly set out. Because this was a sponsorship and not a grant, the real negotiations were around the spin-offs for the Government of Canada in exchange for its sponsorship. In other words, we had an obligation to negotiate, on behalf of the Government of Canada, in a case involving, say, a $12,500 sponsorship, multimedia spin-offs of at least $12,500.
For the benefit of Committee members, we have appended examples of agreements. In Appendix 6, you will see the agreement signed for the Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival. Indeed, this was a $12,500 contract. In Appendices 7, 8, 9 and 10, you have agreements signed as part of the Fourth Francophone Games. There are four contracts there, because there were four completely separate components: government partnership, national visibility, regional visibility, and printing.
¿ (0935)
The agreement was submitted to the Department of Public Works, with a recommendation to approve or refuse it, which sometimes resulted in fresh negotiations with the event organizer for final acceptance by Public Works. At that stage, the agency could make suggestions to the Government of Canada regarding other ideas for securing maximum positive spin-offs from the sponsorship. Here we are referring to promotion, printed materials, promotional items, public relations, media relations, and speaking opportunities for members of Parliament or ministers.
In addition to aspects related strictly to visibility or notoriety, we would sometimes suggest to our client or to the event organizer that the event be used to put a human face on the services provided by the Government of Canada. Let's take the example of the Sound of Light show at Casino Lac Leamy in Hull. There we negotiated the presence on site of a team from Energy, Mines and Resources Canada to raise public awareness about the dangers of pyrotechnics. We also arrange to have the RCMP Band and eight of the Governor General's Foot Guards on site. I don't know whether the term I've used in French is correct or not, but I know that they were called Foot Guards. We also received a hundred or so scouts from all the provinces and territories of Canada. With the people in charge of the Sound of Light show and the National Art Centre, we had planned to stage a major ballet on the pound at the Casino where, as you can imagine, lights and pyrotechnics would have come together in a show featuring water jets propelled by fountains and watercraft, all accompanied by the National Art Centre Orchestra, on a barge in the middle of the pond. That project never saw the light of day, but it is an illustration of the kind of thing that is part of an agency's role if it wants to try and maximize the positive spin-offs for both its client and the vent organizer.
Once all of that had been approved by all parties, the agency would sign the agreement and have the event organizer sign it as well. Following contract signing and upon presenting an invoice, the event organizer could receive a predetermined amount of the sponsorship funding, as stipulated in the agreement. The rest would then be paid following Public Works' acceptance of our report, including an appendix stipulating that the sponsorship had been carried out in accordance with our agreement.
Project officers at Gosselin and Associates closely monitored every stage of the sponsored event, in order to ensure that the event organizer was indeed delivering on all the visibility commitments set out in the agreement. The organizer was required to secure our authorization before being able to use the Canada Wordmark on any kind of promotional material. So, we would examine every single promotional item throughout the production and manufacturing process, to ensure that several conditions were met, including that the name of the sponsor—in this case, the Government of Canada—was used appropriately and that the quality of the French and English versions of any material to be disseminated to the general public was such that the Government of Canada would not suffer any embarrassment.
In Appendix 11, you will find a sponsorship follow-up table. When you're managing a sponsorship, you can't just make it up as you go along. Everything has to be very well coordinated and organized. In Appendix 11, you will see a table that Gosselin Public Relations used as a management tool, and there you can see the contract numbers, a description of the contract, and every step involved in project follow-up. Thus project managers with our firm could closely monitor sponsorships, almost as though they were looking at the dashboard of their car.
Gosselin and Associates also was required to coordinate interaction with the various Government of Canada stakeholders, in order to deliver advertisements, banners and streamers, stands, and so forth to promoters, and to ensure that dignitaries would be present, as appropriate.
¿ (0940)
Most of the time, the agency would be on site as the event unfolded to ensure that all the visibility commitments had been delivered, as specified in the contract. All of this was supported with multiple photographs. Following the event, the agency would prepare a comprehensive report on the conduct of the event and its impact in terms of visibility, notoriety and, where appropriate, knowledge of government services. The report would contain recommendations on the relevance of the sponsored event and the amount to be paid, as compared to the spin-offs. Three copies of the report containing multiple photographs, as well as all relevant supporting documentation, were produced: two were submitted to Public Works Canada, and one was kept by Gosselin Public Relations.
Again, to help you to better understand the situation, we have included an appendix that provides concrete examples of sponsorship reports. These are the reports associated with the agreements we signed. You have the final report on the 22nd Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival and the sponsorship report for the Fourth Francophone Games.
In closing, I just want to assure Committee members and Canadians that my business, my staff and myself have always been very mindful of the need for proper use of public funds and have always provided Public Works with goods and services of a very high quality.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my presentation. Now, with your permission, I would like to briefly explain the documents that appear in the appendices, before taking questions. If that would be possible, I think it would be helpful.
[English]
The Chair: Yes. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Let's begin with the first document, in Appendix 1. You can follow along in either English or French, because both versions are available. This is a prototype that was developed by Gosselin and Associates in the summer of 1997. And here is the reason why we developed it. It's important to understand that when you get involved in the sponsorship process, you are necessarily at the mercy of the organizer of the sponsored event, who can try and force his own contract on you. Right from the beginning, we refused to sign the organizers' contracts, because we felt they could be a cause of embarrassment to the Government of Canada. So, you will see that they contain a lot of clauses aimed at protecting the sponsor.
[English]
The Chair: I understand that the English version is actually annex 2.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct.
The Chair: The French is annex 1; the English is annex 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes.
The agreement begins at the top, on the left-hand side, with the contract number assigned by Public Works Canada. This is an agreement between the sponsorship recipient—the name of the group organizing the event—and the Government of Canada, represented by Gosselin Public Relations, in this case. Previously it was Gosselin and Associates.
Here you have a series of “whereases” in which a description is provided of the event, the conditions underlying the agreement, the organizer's responsibilities, and the fact that the Government of Canada's association with the event is by means of sponsorship funding in the amount set out in the agreement.
In clause 2, you will see that the agreement per se was intended to set out the specific provisions and conditions of the sponsorship being provided by the Government of Canada for the period in question. That period was obviously very limited. That is quite important for insurance purposes, to ensure that there is limited liability for the Government of Canada.
In clause 3, you have the components of the sponsorship. This is where we describe all the visibility elements. We specifically describe everything that will be included as regards visibility components, in consideration for the sponsorship funding. We also specify the production costs, who they are assigned to, and so on, as well as restrictions. The first restriction is that written approval from Gosselin Public Relations had to be obtained in writing by the organizer. That is in 4.1:
| Approval in writing by GPR is required by the organizer before any print, circulation or sale of any item which mentions the Government of Canada, its sponsorship of the event and, in particular, the use of the “Canada” Wordmark which is in any manner produced and intended for public distribution. |
In clause 5, there is a renewal option. That may seem a little strange, but if the sponsorship gives the sponsor a lot of visibility, we want to have an opportunity to renew it the following year.
There are also warranties set out in clause 8, specifically that the organizer has the full right and legal authority to enter into the agreement, has all government licences, permits or other authorizations that are necessary, and that it will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and ordnances. There again, it is very important to avoid causing the sponsor any embarrassment. For its part, the sponsor guarantees the organizer that it has all government licences, permits and other necessary authorizations.
Clause 11 talks about arbitration. These contracts could have been sent to arbitration. There is also a clause regarding termination—clause 12. Clause 13 is a cancellation clause, in cases where, for one reason or another, the event is unable to take place. We wanted to ensure that the Government of Canada could recover the money invested in the sponsorship in cases where the event was cancelled or the organizers went bankrupt.
Clause 20 sets out the schedule of payment. Because this prototype was drafted in 2001 or 2002—I don't know the exact date—the payment schedule had been amended to provide for 50% of the compensation to be payable when the agreement was signed, and the other 50%, 15 days after completion of the event, after confirmation of Appendix A.
In fact, I would ask you to look at Appendix A now, which is still part of the same prototype. In Appendix A, we would certify that all promotional materials had been produced, accepted and distributed in accordance with the agreement, that all visibility elements had been produced, accepted and displayed in accordance with the agreement, and that two copies of a final event report, consistent with the requirements set out in Appendix B, had been produced by the organizer and received by us, thereby allowing us to submit our report to Public Works. We would therefore submit Appendix B—in other words, the report to the client, Public Works, as well as a copy of the invoice submitted by the organizers. The organizers would also send an invoice to Media/IDA Vision. Every piece of the puzzle had to be in place before the organizer was paid.
That's it for the standard agreement. In Appendix B, there is a report plan.
¿ (0945)
This is the basic plan that was used for all reports. There was a detailed visibility plan, an assessment of the sponsorship, and supporting documentation, including photographs, promotional materials, media materials and, very often, press clippings.
Appendix 3 should not be a problem because it is bilingual. At the top, you can see the date the contract was issued and the contract number. This contract is No. EN771-7-0027/01-ACA. You can also see the estimated amount. I should point out here that this is an estimated amount because it is possible for that amount to change as the sponsorship proceeds. It includes both the sponsorship and applicable taxes.
You can also see here that this document confirms the authorization to start work given by fax, in this case, by Mario Parent of Public Works to G.A. Gosselin of Gosselin Strategic Communications Inc.
On page 2, we see that Public Works is asking us to provide these services between April 28, 1997 and March 31, 1998. It was absolutely necessary for the events to occur before the end of the fiscal year, which was March 31, 1998.
As for the requirements and scope of work, this talks about providing advertising services on behalf of Public Works and Government Services Canada in support of its 1997-98 “Various Events” advertising campaign. A detailed description of the advertising services can be found in Appendix A.
You can also see that this is a standard contract. In my opinion, at the time it was used by Public Works primarily for advertising services, and although I am not really in a position to say, I assume that because the Sponsorship Program was only just starting up, they used the same contract with a few minor changes.
On the same page, there is an explanation of the role of the project authority, Mr. J. Charles Guité, as well as of the contracting authority, Mr. Mario Parent.
On the following page, right after the heading “Refer to Annex A”, you have clauses relating to expenditure, limitation and cost reimbursable. It specifies that Canada's liability to the contractor under this contract shall not exceed $985,000. This is the same amount that appears on the first page but without the taxes.
On the following page, page 4, under the heading “Invoices”, it specifies that one original and two copies of invoices are to be made out and forwarded to the project authority. It also states:
| Each invoice [...] will contain the following contractor's Certificate signed by an officer of the contractor: |
So, every invoice would contain the following:
| I hereby certify and represent that the following statements are true: |
| Direct materials have been received, accepted and either paid for or accrued in the accounts and have been or will be used for the purposes of the contract. All direct labour, subcontractor costs and direct charges have been paid for or accrued in the accounts and all such costs were incurred exclusively for the purposes of the contract. |
¿ (0950)
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Gosselin, I think we can move through this a little faster. We don't have to cover off every paragraph.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In Appendix A of that contract, there is a description of the client's requirements—a description of the work to be performed—and a statement of work. This particular one covers the Canadian Tulip Festival, the Hot Air Balloon Festival, the Franco-Ontarian Festival, and the One to One Challenge of Champions, Donovan Bailey's race. There were also advertising-related services. In fact, these were operating expenses associated with the sponsorship, including production and professional fees.
I just want to draw your attention to page 7, which refers to sub-contracts. There was no requirement for a tendering process for sub-contracts of less than $25,000. For those over $25,000, the contractor had to provide three bids and submit them to Public Works for approval. That directive was always widely known and adhered to at Gosselin and Associates.
So that pretty well covers it. I think you have a good understanding of this type of contract, so I don't need to say anything more.
Please forgive me if I'm taking up a lot of time. I'm not sure how familiar you are with this. If you see that I'm taking too much time, please say so.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Gosselin, a lot of this stuff we are familiar with. If there is anything specific you wanted to highlight, do so, but don't just give us a resumé of everything that's in the documentation.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Okay.
[Translation]
In Appendix 4, or Appendix 5 for the English version, you have copies of the procedures followed by Gosselin and Associates, and subsequently by Gosselin Public Relations. This explains what officers were required to do. It helped them prepare the agreement and the report.
Let's look at the first actual example, relating to the Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Desrochers, a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: We are here to talk about the Auditor General's report. Yet the material being presented refers to the period from 1997 to 2000, and the examples all date back to 2001. I realize that Mr. Gosselin is trying to demonstrate that his firm did good work, but I would like his comments to relate specifically to the Auditor General's report. If he has relevant points to raise, that's fine, but we are perfectly capable of reviewing these files. We want to ask questions about the files the Auditor General refers to, because at the rate we're going now, when 11 o'clock rolls around, we still won't have asked a single question, Mr. Chairman.
¿ (0955)
[English]
The Chair: You're right, Mr. Desrochers. I did note that tabs 1 and 2 only came into effect in 2001. Before we started the questions, I was going to find out what the procedure was prior to 2001, for the edification of the committee.
Mr. Gosselin, if you just want to touch on the important points and bulletins you feel we need to know, we can cover off the rest of this by ourselves. We'll give you a few more minutes to wrap this up.
[Translation]
M. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move through this more quickly. I did think it was important for Committee members to have a good understanding of the kind of work performed by Gosselin and Associates because, as I understand it, your job is to ask questions about the value of the services the government received. I felt this was relevant.
[English]
The Chair: This is very true, Mr. Gosselin, but we have been working on this now for two months and have heard from a large number of witnesses. I think the members of the committee have a good feel for the process. We're trying to understand why it didn't follow the Government of Canada rules. I think that is where we're coming from. The documentation you brought, standard contracts and so on, we're quite familiar with.
Anyway, as I say, I'd like you to cover off the highlights you feel are important, and we'll wrap this up in a few minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: In answer to a comment made, I realize that the documents being presented this morning may seem somewhat disparate. Some are dated in 1997, such as the contract in Appendix 3, while others are dated in 2001. There is a good reason for that, Mr. Chairman. It has been extremely difficult to gather the necessary documents for the presentation this morning. I sold my company in 1998, and most of the documents stayed with Gosselin Public Relations, for reasons of continuity, and so on. In 2002, I was able to collect some documents pertaining to me for my own accounting purposes, or for the company's accounting. Unfortunately, the rest were removed when the RCMP raided the offices of Groupaction. They took everything away. Those documents are no longer available to me. That is the situation. All the documents were taken away by the RCMP, and it has thus become extremely difficult to find specific points of reference.
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I just want to give you an example of a sponsorship report, which was prepared for the Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival. It can be found in Appendix 12. If you look at most of…
[English]
The Chair: Un moment, s'il vous plaît.
A point of order, Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): I appreciate the work the witness has gone through, but when you look at appendix 6 through appendix 16, they all deal with 2001. It's beyond the scope of the Auditor General's report, and I don't think we need to hear from the witness on that particular document.
For the purposes of the presentation, why is 2001 relevant to us?
The Chair: I wanted to get the witness to move quickly through it. I think it's important for him to be able to speak to us. As I mentioned earlier, my first question before I opened it up was that these documents seem to apply to the end of the process rather than the years of concern. Perhaps he would explain that to us.
Is there anything else in this document that you would like to draw to our attention, Mr. Gosselin?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, I was able to locate these documents and have brought them along as examples, because it's exactly the same for every sponsorship contract handled by Gosselin and Associates since 1997. The exact same procedure was followed.
À (1000)
[English]
The Chair: A point of order, Mrs. Jennings.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: My Opposition colleagues claim that the information Mr. Gosselin is bringing forward is not relevant to the Auditor General's report, because the contracts he is referring to go back to 2001 or 2002. However, I would draw their attention to chapter 3, page 31, where the Auditor General talks about improvements and changes made by Communication Canada. In paragraph 3.108, she says that she audited a sample of 25 project files from September 2001 to March 2003. So, the Auditor General herself extended her audit work to the three final years of the Sponsorship Program, and the information Mr. Gosselin is presenting is specifically related to that. Therefore, it is perfectly relevant.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings.
We like to give witnesses the opportunity to explain themselves and make opening statements. As the law clerk said, it's their obligation to put all the facts on the table before the first questions are even asked. Therefore we give significant opportunity to the witnesses to make their presentations. They are not vetted by me, the clerks, the law clerk, or anybody else. They are their statements. That's why we give them a large amount of latitude.
Mr. Toews.
Mr. Vic Toews: Continuing on the same point of order, I am just asking how it is relevant. If the witness indicates it's relevant in the way that Madam Jennings has indicated, I'm prepared to accept that. But I haven't seen the relevancy yet.
Mr. Dennis Mills: A point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I have just one point, Mr. Mills.
In response to Mr. Toews, Mr. Gosselin is here to explain their involvement, and so on, in the sponsorship programs, as identified by the Auditor General in her reports. He is speaking to these issues. I feel they are relevant. Madam Jennings pointed out that they very much cover the same period that is covered by the Auditor General.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Dennis Mills: On chapter 3, page 3, the chart clearly shows all of us that the period she covered was from 1997-98 to 2002-03.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills. I just ruled that it was in order.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Good.
The Chair: Mr. Murphy.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, they may be relevant, but I think we're wasting time.
The Chair: I agree with you.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: The problems we're dealing with occurred in 1997, 1998, and 1999. We all agree there was stern corrective action taken in the early part of 2001. Since then there hasn't been a problem. These contracts probably reflect that, so I think we should go back to the relevant time.
The Chair: Yes.
Monsieur Desrochers, final point.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: In the witness's defence, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that he himself told us, right at the outset, that he was not here to answer questions about the period after which his firm had been sold to Groupaction. When did that happen? Was it in 1998, or 1999?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well, I was explaining…
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Desrochers, these are questions you can apply during your intervention. We're here to get information the witness wishes to put on the table--
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Desrochers—
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: This is a point of clarification. Mr. Chairman. This is the first time you have authorized a witness to make a 50-minute presentation. Why special privileges for Mr. Gosselin today?
[English]
The Chair: I have never shut anybody down during their opening statement on this particular investigation.
If he needs 50 minutes, he has had 50 minutes. He's going to be here all day.
If we keep having these points of order, we'll never get to the witness.
Now, Mr. Gosselin, you've heard the comments of the committee. The concerns we have were happening up until about 1999, or thereabouts. Things started to get better with the 2000 audit report, as far as we are aware. We want to focus on the periods before, but you're focusing on the period of 2001-2002.
If you have anything more relevant on the 1999 area, and before that, you have a couple of minutes to wrap it up. Then we're going to go to questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to help you understand that following the internal audit in 2001, when changes were made to the Program, Public Works required that communications agencies use a contract—that they sign a formal agreement with event organizers. The fact is that we are the ones that developed that contract. That is the contract that was used subsequently. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the contract was developed by us, at our expense, as early as 1997, in order to protect the Government of Canada. And with that, I conclude my remarks.
À (1005)
[English]
The Chair: I have a simple question, and then we're going to go to the others.
Prior to 2000-2001, when you introduced this contract, and so on—
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: They developed a contract in 1997.
The Chair: I know they developed a contract.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The government then made it a requirement, based on the model of their contract in 2001.
The Chair: My question is, and I think everybody wants to know the answer to it.... There was a significant change in procedures starting around 2000-2001. We have focused prior to that.
Was there a significant difference in the way things happened in the mid-nineties compared to the way they were done in 2001-2002? Was there a significant difference?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: At Gosselin and Associates, there was no difference, Mr. Chairman. We always operated on the basis of a specific procedure, using a formal agreement that we would have event organizers sign and that included an appendix. We always proceeded in that manner. Then there was a final report, supporting documentation, photos, etc.
I just want to make one final comment, Mr. Chairman, because we are using up a lot of time here. I want to draw your attention to the report prepared for the Franco-Saskatchewanian Festival to demonstrate that sometimes, with a sponsorship at that level, we obviously cannot afford to put someone on a plane to be on site to take photographs, and ensure that everything was done properly. You will see that in this particular report, we state that many of the requirements associated with the sponsorship that should have been met were not. I just wanted you to know that things were not always perfect and that we were required to make recommendations to the client. You will see that everything is there. There are very specific recommendations as well as a statement of the facts.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Gosselin.
Two things. One, we expect bells to ring at 10:15. It'll be a half-hour bell, meaning that the vote will be at approximately 10:45. We should be able to return here at approximately 11 o'clock. We will therefore consider the break as having been held at that time, and we'll just go from the time we convene through to 1 o'clock.
Number two, as we all know, if we find the questions by members, or the answers by the witness, tending to go off on tangents, not being totally focused on the question, the chair will interrupt to keep the issues focused.
Since Mr. Gosselin is here all day, are we agreed to eight-minute rounds all day?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Mr. MacKay, for eight minutes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gosselin, we appreciate your presence here.
I think the most relevant thing you may have said was that things were not perfect. That's a bit of an understatement, given the amount of money that's involved here. Your company, Gosselin, was one of the main recipients of the work that has come under examination and question by the Auditor General.
Although you took exception to some of the Auditor General's findings...in fact, I wrote down one of your quotes where you said that the process was not the best, but there was a process. The Auditor General had alleged that none of the agencies had been selected properly. You said, well, there was a process. She said “properly”; they weren't selected properly.
You know, it's not just the Auditor General. The quick response team that we had before us yesterday identified your company as one of those companies that had poor documentation in terms of the 126 sponsorship programs they looked at.
One of those that I want to question you on in particular involves the Bluenose. This particular contract went to Gosselin Communications, and it was also one of the ones highlighted by the Auditor General. In fact, on two occasions now she has come back to us and identified this as one of the programs or one of the particular sponsorship programs where, in her view--and I'm quoting from paragraph 3.60--she describes the audit sample containing this file as having “no assessment of the project's merits or even any criteria for assessing the merit. No file contained the rationale supporting the decision to sponsor the event. Furthermore...there was no information about the event organizers, no description of the project, and no discussion of the visibility the Government of Canada would achieve by sponsoring the event.”
She goes on in paragraph 3.69 to say that in 49% of the files--this being one of them--“there was no post mortem report and therefore no evidence that the government had obtained the visibility it had paid for”. She says this in a letter dated April 26, specifically referencing the Bluenose project and your communications firm.
Can you explain that and how you square that with what you've told us about how it was supposed to work? You've laid out in considerable detail, in minutiae, how these programs were supposed to operate, and yet the Auditor General and the quick response team directly contradict you on this file.
À (1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. MacKay, I can assure you of one thing: two copies of the Bluenose report were submitted to Public Works. When I say “copies” of the report, I want to be clear. I'm not talking about a four-page report. The Bluenose report consisted of 33 separate reports covering 33 events in 33 different cities, all supported by photographs. I can tell you, without exaggeration, that if you had placed these reports in a pile, they would have been about four feet high. Two reports such as that do not go unnoticed, just for your own information.
Also, the Bluenose contract, contrary to what you have stated, was not awarded to Gosselin and Associates, but rather to Lafleur Communication Marketing. I was a sub-contractor for Lafleur Communication Marketing. If you have questions about what occurred, I would invite you to contact Mr. Jean Lafleur, the then owner of Lafleur Communication Marketing.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're telling us that everything was in order, you sent it off through Lafleur to the Government of Canada, and if it's not in a file now somewhere, you have no knowledge of how that happened. It's gone. It just disappeared into the ether.
Let me ask you a specific question, sir. What happened with respect to a tractor-trailer that was used to transport the Bluenose?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I will answer that question, but before I do, I want to come back to the comment you made previously.
How is it that the Auditor General could not locate these documents? Well, the explanation may be that…
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Gosselin, the Auditor General has stated quite specifically that the documents were not in the government file. She checked, and I read a letter from her yesterday about how these things are checked, double-checked, triple-checked, and so on.
We don't want to go into this discussion about why the Auditor General said what she said. She stands by every word in her report, and that is from the government files. So the questions that you're to answer are from your side of the transaction.
Mr. Thibault, please.
Hon. Robert Thibault: In his preamble a few moments ago, Mr. MacKay raised a point. He raised it to the witness and ended by saying these files “disappeared into the ether”. His tone of voice, his suggestions, cast aspersions on the witness. I think he should be given a moment to answer.
The Chair: That is right, but then he tried to question the Auditor General's report as to the documents. We're not here to have his opinion on the Auditor General's report; we're here to hear his opinion of what he knows. That's the issue.
Mr. MacKay, do you want to pose your question again?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Essentially you're saying that from the perspective of Gosselin you sent everything, so the Auditor General, in finding that those documents were not there...you can't explain that. To be fair to you, you can't explain it. You're telling us you sent all of the documentation that verified that the work was done; that things such as how the tractor-trailer was paid for, who was paid to transport the Bluenose around the country, invoices, pictures, verifications, and post-mortems were all sent. Yes?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin:
All of that was very well documented. We had all the supporting invoices, all the supporting documentation, and the client received at least two copies of it. You were asking earlier whether we had these documents. But let's not forget that the Auditor General is there, Mr. Chairman. This isn't a value judgment I'm making about her work; I'm simply quoting her. This is what she said:
| We did not audit the records of the private sector contractors. Consequently, our conclusions cannot and do not pertain to any practices that contractors follow. |
À (1015)
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Nobody's suggesting that she looked at your books.
You knew Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay. You met with them quite regularly.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I knew Mr. Guité, yes, and I knew Mr. Tremblay. I would meet with them regularly as part of my duties.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you socialize with them? Did you ever go to hockey games with them, or go fishing? Did they ever come to your house? Was there any interaction of a more personal nature as well?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: For your information, Mr. Guité is a friend of mine, someone I have known since 1985 or 1986. Mr. Guité was the Director of Exhibitions. I was the Director of Publications for the Government of Canada at the Communications Coordination Services Branch. So, we would have meetings. After that, there were a few years during which I did not see Mr. Guité. I met him again in Montreal in 1992, once I was already in business for myself. I had left the Government of Canada. Mr. Guité was Vice-President of St. Joseph Printing in Hull. We would see each other more often at that point.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: If I could interrupt you, sir, while he was working in his capacity as the head of the sponsorship program, did you socialize with him? Did you go fishing with him? Did he go to your house? Did you meet with him outside your professional capacity? That's what I'm asking you.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes. I did see Mr. Guité in other contexts.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you ever give him gifts of any kind?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I never gave gifts to Mr. Guité. Never.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to ask you specifically about a project you were involved in during the 1999 Winterlude festival. It's correct that you had a contract that you then subcontracted to Unicom, which is controlled by your son, Nicolas Gosselin. There's an allegation that Unicom bought watches, and these watches were in turn passed on to Gosselin, which was then given a commission for their distribution.
I'd like to know if there were rules around subcontracting like that. What was the value added for buying these watches from essentially your son's company,and then passing them on to Public Works and adding a commission? Where was the value added that the public or the Government of Canada would receive for that type of arrangement?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Standards regarding purchases of that nature are spelled out in the contracts that Public Works signs with agencies. You will see that for any purchases under $25,000, there is no need to obtain three bids, whereas for purchases over $25,000 three bids are required. That was always the practice followed at Gosselin and Associates: there were three bids and the lowest bidder got the contract. In fact, this would be submitted to Public Works and the Minister had to accept it.
[English]
The Chair: Merci beaucoup.
Mr. Gosselin, did you say to Mr. MacKay that Mr. Guité was a vice-president of St. Joseph Printing?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct.
[English]
The Chair: In 1992?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I think it was around 1992. I don't know for how long he held the position, but he was Vice-President of St. Joseph Printing.
The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, please.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gosselin, for being with us today.
Mr. Gosselin, does the name Mario Parent ring a bell?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, of course.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: What was your relationship with Mr. Parent?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: When he was with Public Works, I had a professional relationship with him.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: What exactly was his role at Public Works? I know that you mentioned this in the contract appendix, but what type of relationship existed between Mr. Parent and yourself?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: He would simply forward the contracts to my chief accountant, that's all.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is it true, Mr. Gosselin, that at some point, Mr. Parent resigned from his job and joined your company?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It is true that Mr. Parent retired, or left the Government of Canada under early retirement program, and came to us offering his services; I then enquired as to whether he would be in a conflict of interest. I was told he would not, and he was given a job at our agency.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: What kind of job?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: He was a project officer, like the others.
À (1020)
Mr. Odina Desrochers: And were you by any chance tempted to give him contracts directly with Public Works, since he came from Public Works?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't understand your question. I don't give contracts.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You go out and look for someone with experience at Public Works. I'm asking whether one can assume that you entrusted him with files where he had to liaise with Public Works, since he was familiar with the way the department operated.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You are almost right, and I'll tell you why. When we had to prepare a bid or make a submission to Public Works, we obviously entrusted that task to Mario Parent. Why would we not have? He was used to it and had the skills to handle that kind of work. That way, we were sure not to make a mistake when preparing a bid for submission.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to refer to a document that I obtained through Access to Information dating back to April 22 and 23, 1997.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, do you have any more copies of that document? Can you give one to Mr. Gosselin?
You have only one copy.
Okay, if anybody ever wants to try to table documents that put the witness on the spot, they should actually be able to give the witness a copy of that document.
Continue on, Mr. Desrochers, but try in the future to make sure that documents are available. You can't just catch the witness this way. We'd prefer not to do this.
Monsieur Desrochers.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I am referring to a document that talks about firms suggested to Public Works on April 22 and 23, 1997. In this document, Gosselin Communications is proposed. Do you know who made the decision with respect to agency selection? Who made the decision?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Desrochers, I haven't seen the document you are referring to, and I didn't work at Public Works.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: No, but I can tell you that it was Mario Parent who was given your name in 1997, and who included the firm named Gosselin Communications in his list. After that, he retired, as you say, and went to work for you.
I have another question along the same lines.
Members of the Rapid Response Team are alleging that before he left Public Works, Mr. Parent gave you a 50% increase in your hourly rate, raising it from $135 to $205 an hour. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: What year are you referring to?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm talking about the period during which Mr. Parent, just before retiring from his government job, gave you a 50% increase in your hourly rate, raising it from $135 to $205 an hour. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: If you look at the contract, you will see that Mr. Parent is a contract officer. So, he is not the person that makes those decisions. It was probably Mr. Guité or someone else who made that decision.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: But you admit that Mr. Parent interceded with Mr. Guité, saying that it might be a good idea for his friend Gosselin to get a 50% increase.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: First of all, he wasn't my friend. So he certainly could never have said that.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: But he went to work for you afterwards.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, but at that point, I didn't know him.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did that increase apply only to that specific contract, or did you also benefit from substantial increases for other contracts as well, Mr. Gosselin?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, that increase was given to Gosselin and Associates to bring our rates more in line with those of other agencies.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Gosselin, there was a lot of discussion of overbilling in the Auditor General's report. As you know, following the release of the report, a Rapid Response Team was set up. Mr. Gosselin, you personally billed 3,673 hours in a single year, which is an average of 10 hours per day, for a total of $625,325. That's a lot of money, Mr. Gosselin! How can you possibly justify that kind of billing? You worked 10 hours a day, and provided 3,673 hours of work in a single day! Is that correct?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Did you say, in a single day?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I meant in a single year.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Is there a law in Canada that prevents someone from working seven days a week?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You are a brave man, Mr. Gosselin. You worked 10 hours a day, which makes 3,673 hours in a year. But the most attractive part of that as far as you're concerned is that you were paid $625,325.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I can't tell you whether those figures are correct or not, because I haven't done my own calculations. But I can tell you one thing, Mr. Desrochers. In the summer of 1997, in particular, we worked our heads off. I'll tell you why. The office was just opening up in Ottawa and we were beginning to handle sponsorships. The sponsorships were coming in at an absolutely phenomenal rate. We weren't able to do any planning, because we never knew whether another sponsorship application or other work might land on our desks the next day.
À (1025)
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Are you the one that was doing all of that, Mr. Gosselin?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, but I'm sure you understand what happens in cases like that, right?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You submitted a personal invoice, Mr. Gosselin.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, allow the witness to finish the answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You see, Mr. Desrochers, when a client puts in an order, you want to satisfy that client. In addition to that, when you're managing a company, you also have to hire staff. You have to train them, or you have this or that to take care of. So, the fact is I worked very, very hard, to the point where I ended up in the hospital that fall. That's what happens.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I recognize, Mr. Gosselin, that your firm hired a lot of staff. I also understand that you had a very heavy workload, but I must say I'm completely baffled by a personal invoice of 3,673 hours, which amounts to 10 hours per day and fees of $625,325 for your agency in a single year. You are an exceptionally productive worker, Mr. Gosselin.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I appreciate your bafflement, Mr. Desrochers.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you. Do I still have some time, Mr. Chairman?
[English]
The Chair: One minute and a half.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to come back to another contract you referred to earlier in responding to my Conservative colleague. It's the one relating to the 228 Birks watches for which your firm took a 17% commission along the way. You say that this was done in accordance with the regulations, and that sometimes you would take a small $25,000 contract to ensure that officials at Public Works wouldn't see them. Did you often divide a contract in three to ensure that, since they were less than $25,000, no one would have the right to review these contracts?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Desrochers, you are making assertions.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm asking a question.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: What is your question? Could you repeat your question?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: You told Mr. MacKay that with respect to this particular contract, three contracts had been let so that each would come under the $25,000 threshold.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No one ever said there were three contracts. Where did you get that? There were never three contracts. There was only one contract.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: What was the amount of the contract?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I have no idea, but there was only one contract for all the watches. I don't know how much it was. I did not determine the content of the contracts. Public Works is the one that placed the order.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: But you still took a commission along the way.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that is what our contracts stipulate. By the way, Mr. Desrochers, I should point out that the rate was 17.65%, and not 17%.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Desrochers, merci beaucoup.
Monsieur Gosselin, the increase in the fee from $135 to $205 an hour that Monsieur Desrochers mentioned was apparently approved by Mr. Parent just before he moved over. Did you have discussions with Mr. Guité and Mr. Parent on increasing the fee? How did this increase come about?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, I did have discussions with Mr. Guité, but not with Mr. Parent. In fact, Mr. Guité was the one who made the decision, not Mr. Parent. All of this arose because I found out from other agencies that my rates were very low compared to theirs. Mr. Guité accepted the fact that our rates should be brought up to pretty much the same level as those of other agencies.
[English]
The Chair: What is the point of having open, competitive bids if everybody agrees, all the companies agree, to bid the same price? What's the point of having a competitive bid?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well, you would have to put that question to the manager at Public Works, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to ask you, did you collude with the other advertising agencies to have a standard fee in order to bill the government?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not at all. There was no collusion.
[English]
The Chair: But you said there was a standard fee. You say there was no collusion and you wanted to get up to the same price as everybody else. Isn't that collusion?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No.
[English]
The Chair: Can you explain the difference?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, I never said anything about a standard fee. I simply said that my rates were lower than those of most of the other agencies. I want you to know that I never found out what rates the others were charging. I did find out, though, that my rates were much lower. That's all.
I didn't discuss this with the other agencies. If you know anything about this business, you will know that it is extraordinarily competitive, but people don't talk to each other, and if they have an opportunity to take contracts away from other agencies, they'll do it.
À (1030)
[English]
The Chair: It seems rather strange that you seem to know what the others were charging and you were significantly lower. I may be wrong, but I think the blues will say that you said there was an industry standard and that Mr. Guité volunteered to elevate your fees up to what the other people's were. I want to know the nature of your discussion, interaction, with Mr. Guité to bring that about.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It's not a standard. Every business has its own rates and its own specialties. We did not have every single specialty.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, you quoted from a document. Can you give a copy of that to the clerk, please? Thank you very much.
Monsieur Thibault, s'il vous plaît, huit minutes.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gosselin, welcome to the Committee.
I'm concerned about two pieces of information in particular. The first one concerns Mr. Guité. You said in your testimony that Mr. Guité was Vice-President of St. Joseph Printing in 1992. To your knowledge, was Mr. Guité a public servant at that time? Was he a salaried employee of the Government of Canada?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, he had left the federal public service, but he returned subsequently.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you. Second, I would like to clarify some information you provided in answer to a question from Mr. Desrochers. You stated that you had personally billed some 3,600 hours in a single year, suggesting that you had worked 10 hours a day, seven days a week.
You certainly didn't bill only the hours spent managing your business. You conducted staff interviews. These are hours that you personally devoted to federal government files.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That's correct.
As I explained to Mr. Desrochers, I cannot challenge the figures—neither refute them nor confirm their accuracy, but I do remember that I worked a great many hours that particular year. For the Bluenose tour, for example, our days would begin at 6 in the morning and very often end at midnight or one in the morning. That's how the hours built up.
Hon. Robert Thibault: I don't doubt that, but it is still somewhat difficult to understand. I have never worked in that kind of business or in that particular industry.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: When there are events to manage, you have to be on site. Some periods are quieter than others, but there are some that are completely crazy, and that was certainly the case.
Hon. Robert Thibault: The fact remains that if Mr. Desrochers' figures are correct—3,600 hours in a single year—there couldn't have been any quiet periods. We're talking about 10 hours a day every single day of the year.
At that time, you were the Chief Executive Officer of a growing firm. You found the time to keep up your relationship with Mr. Guité, but then you got sick. That is understandable. How could you possibly have been managing your business when, based on the invoices, you were personally devoting 10 hours a day, every day, to this work? It's pretty baffling.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well, it is possible.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Did some junior members of the staff work on theses files?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Of course.
Hon. Robert Thibault: And could their hours have been recorded as yours on the invoices, as part of this work?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No.
Every employee has time cards. That's the way it worked. It was project management: such and such an employee worked so many hours on a given project and so many hours on another project. The accountant would use the time cards to do the invoicing for each project.
Hon. Robert Thibault: There are still problems with this, but we'll have to take a look at the time cards, to see how the invoicing was done, who invoiced and how many hours were invoiced in a year. I haven't seen the document. I realize that we haven't been able to get it, but it makes things difficult.
Let's talk about L'Information essentielle and funds transfer. Did you find it normal to be receiving funds from the federal government and to be transferring that money to L'Information essentielle? It was a very, very good project, but was it normal practice for you to receive a commission simply for transferring money? First of all, was that in fact the case? Is that what happened? If so, could you please explain that?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: First of all, it was not simply a transfer of funds. As I explained in my testimony, I contacted Mr. Scully a number of times and tried to convince him to sign a formal agreement setting out the specific visibility requirements. The fact is there were a number of invoices. There were three: two under Gosselin and Associates, and a third, under Gosselin Public Relations. Each time, we demanded that the event organizer—well, I'm not sure it was the event organizer—or the product supplier let us see the product. I can tell you that at one point, I sat someone down in the conference room for three days. We had received two or three boxes of tapes, which were in fact footage from his television series. I called the client, Public Works, to say that Mr. Scully had sent us a product that seemed to be the one he had promised to deliver, and to find out what we were supposed to do. The person from Public Works who answered me said that it was okay, and that this was all she needed to know.
You know, when a client asks you for something…
À (1035)
Hon. Robert Thibault: It's good work… [Editor's Note: Inaudible]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: When a client asks you for something like that, you don't say to him that you don't want to do it, or that you won't touch that because… No, you do it. That's what the client wants, so you do it.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Did you feel uncomfortable at that point? Did you feel that you were not playing the same role as for the Bluenose contract, for example, or for other sponsorships where the work was done, as you pointed out?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: One thing that did make us very uncomfortable was not signing an agreement, because it really wasn't consistent with our policy and our way of doing things. Initially, yes, there was a great deal of discomfort about this. However, as I explained to you, we asked Public Works to get the organizer to comply and were told to forget it.
There is something else I want to tell you. Of course, there are sponsorship projects that cost $500,000, and others that cost only $10,000. There are projects in every single price range. We even had a $300 sponsorship. We received a commission of $36 or $3.60 for the sponsorship. But opening up any sponsorship file costs money, in terms of staff work—about 3,000 hours. And there I'm not talking about business management costs, rent, and so on.
A slightly more sophisticated sponsorship project is more work. For example, for the Francophone Games, we're talking about 5,000, 10,000 or even 15,000 hours just to manage the project in terms of staff. Certainly, there are sponsorships where you lose money and others where you make more. That may have been the client's way of balancing things out. I don't really know, but ultimately, things did balance out.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Mr. Gosselin.
Mr. Gosselin, you say you don't agree with the Auditor General and her Office with respect to the way her audit is presented. It's difficult for me to challenge the facts. The facts are the facts, and I think they do excellent work in terms of determining the facts. Sometimes people have other opinions on the report itself, on the decisions that were made or on the recommendations presented. However, the Rapid Response Team, the Auditor General and a number of others all seem to agree that the files were incomplete.
When he testified before us, Mr. Boulay stated that some supporting documents were kept by the agencies and were not submitted to Public Works in relation to a specific contract.
You said that in your case, for all sponsorships, complete files were forwarded to Public Works. Is that because your internal procedure calls for that or was it at the request of Public Works?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, it was our internal procedure. We had established that internal procedure right at the outset, to be sure that things were done properly. There has been a lot of discussion about the fact—and Mr. MacKay mentioned this a little earlier—that files were missing, and so on, but I want to repeat once again that we always submitted two copies of all agreements, all sponsorship reports, and all appendices. We always did that.
I would now like to read you a memo. Of course, I can't possibly know…
[English]
The Chair: Is it a long memo?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I won't read it; I'll just summarize it and you can have copies made.
This memo is dated October 8, 1998 and is signed by Huguette Tremblay.
As I've been saying from the very beginning, we always sent two copies of our report, which was very comprehensive and included all the supporting documentation. One year later, Huguette Tremblay asked us to again send copies of the reports, because she no longer had them, because they had disappeared or I don't know what. She gave us a list of the contracts for which she wished to receive reports. In fact, if you look at this list, you will see that it mentions pretty well every one of the sponsorship contracts we were awarded. They received the reports, we sent them a second time—two copies, once again—and the Auditor General says there were no reports.
À (1040)
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Gosselin, that memo from Huguette Tremblay, was that while she was working for Monsieur Guité or while she was working in Mr. Gagliano's office? What's the date of the memo?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It is dated October 8, 1998 and is signed by Huguette Tremblay, Chief, Special Projects. She was responsible for managing all sponsorship projects for Public Works Canada.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
The other point I want to raise is that I think we should write to the Public Service Commission. We had no idea that Mr. Guité had any gap in his employment with the Government of Canada, and now we find out that he was a vice-president of a printing corporation. We should perhaps check to find out if there was a gap in his employment with the Government of Canada.
Mr. Murphy.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Just to speak to that, Mr. Chairman, I do recall Mr. Guité explaining that at one time in his career he left the public service to go to this printing company. It was actually a privatization of the printing service for the Government of Canada. He explained that he was there for about an 18-month period, and then he returned. I don't know if it was a totally private company or if it was in the process of being privatized.
Mr. Dennis Mills: It was private at that time...[Inaudible—Editor]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I think it would be a good idea to get that in a letter of explanation, but he did talk about that, about going to the St. Joseph printing company in Hull.
The Chair: Oh, he did. Okay.
Well, why don't we just ask for a letter from the Public Service Commission that says, if there was a gap in his employment with the Government of Canada, what that gap period was.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Why don't we check his testimony? He said it.
The Chair: I know he said that he was with--
Mr. Dennis Mills: No, Mr. Guité said it.
The Chair: Well, it's just a letter to the Public Service Commission.
Monsieur Desrochers.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the matter of St. Joseph Printing. Having read the resume that was tabled here, I have to say I don't recall seeing that.
Could we check the curriculum vitae submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by Mr. Guité to see whether that appears? I've been told that it isn't mentioned in his resume.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask our clerks and researchers to check that out. In the absence of same, we will write a letter to the Public Service Commission.
By the way, the vote was on division. There was no recorded vote, so the bells will not ring. Therefore, we'll break at 11 o'clock for about 15 minutes.
Madam Wasylycia-Leis, please, eight minutes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
[Translation]
Mr. Gosselin, I want to thank you for your testimony.
[English]
I'm going to begin in English.
[Translation]
If I find the courage, I will continue in French.
[English]
I want to reference, as you've done in your testimony, the fact that we have an Auditor General's report that has pointed out some clear problems in the whole area of sponsorship, advertising, and market research. But she's not alone. We've also had reports from the quick response team, which has documented cases of overcharging, extra charging, overbilling, lack of proper documentation, lack of a competitive process, and perhaps money-for-nothing contracts. We've also had two internal audits that have referenced serious problems.
You seem to be here today saying that there was nothing wrong, ever. Are you saying that all of these studies, and the Auditor General, are wrong, that their findings are wrong, and that we're mistaken in our efforts to try to put in place a more appropriate system within government for disbursement of funds?
The Chair: Madam Wasylycia-Leis, it's not for Mr. Gosselin to say that the Auditor General is wrong. The Auditor General has made her statements and she stands by them. You are to ask Mr. Gosselin what he knows and not his opinion on the AG's report.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
On a point of order, I'm referencing the comments that Mr. Gosselin made vis-à-vis the Auditor General in questioning some of her findings. He went through it in a very detailed format.
I'm really asking a question on that same theme, which is, given all the evidence, are you really saying there was no misappropriation of public funds anywhere, that there were no problems in this whole system? Everything was hunky dory?
À (1045)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I can assure you that there was no misappropriation of public funds by Gosselin and Associates. We have every reason to believe that the same applies to Gosselin Public Relations, at least for the time when I was there. I can guarantee you that.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.
We've just had some discussion here at this table about your close relationship to Chuck Guité and the fact that there was a Public Works employee who played a significant role in CCSB, Mr. Parent, who, interestingly, arranged for or was part of a group that saw you get a tremendous increase in your per diems. He then miraculously left to go and work for you.
So we have a close relationship between you and Mr. Guité, we have this interesting development with Mr. Mario Parent, and you don't think we should be questioning the fact that there might have been a reason that we didn't have a competitive process, that maybe you had an in, that perhaps some favours were granted you based on this close relationship? How can we not question it?
How can you account for the benefits you received from the government and your very close relationship with Public Works officials?
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you're getting into your observations now. I'd rather you just ask Mr. Gosselin questions so we can more fully understand the issues at hand.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All right, Mr. Chairperson.
I think, Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I'm asking, again based on the testimony of Mr. Gosselin this morning, about (a) his close relationship with Mr. Guité, and (b) the fact that Mr. Mario Parent did move from government to his office right after--it would appear--the per diems went up quite significantly.
I'm simply asking the question of the perception we have of favouritism, asking if in fact he doesn't think there's reason for us and the public to believe there was unethical behaviour. It's a simple question.
The Chair: You can state that you have a perception, that you can't understand why this would happen, and therefore you can ask the question. But we'll leave off the innuendo and so on. You can state your opinion, but don't speak for the committee.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I didn't speak for the committee. I spoke to the testimony.
The Chair: Then ask the question.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I asked if Mr. Gosselin didn't receive any favours as a result of this close relationship. Did you benefit from...?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Are you asking me whether I received financial benefits?
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You and your firm.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No. As I already said, there was a competition, contracts were issued, work was performed, reports with supporting documentation were submitted, and payments were made. That's all.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fine. I want to ask you a question, the same one I put to Mr. Boulay from Groupe Everest and others. You received $60,000 for transferring government funds to L'Information essentielle, for production of a series on Maurice Richard. What services did you provide in exchange for that $60,000?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: We tried to have the parties sign a formal agreement providing a guarantee to the government that it would receive visibility elements for at least the equivalent of the sponsorship. We prepared the agreement and tried to discuss it with Mr. Robert Guy Scully. Mr. Scully never agreed to sign the agreement. We discussed that with Public Works, but they told us to dispense with our procedures in this specific case. Subsequently, the only thing that was done, to my knowledge—I did not really look into this file and have spoken to no one who was involved in it—was that we required that L'Information essentielle provide us with all the production material. We viewed that material. We put someone in a conference room for two or three days to screen all the tapes, one by one, to see what was on them. He took notes and we forwarded a report to Public Works Canada. Officials from Public Works then told us that everything was fine. That's it.
À (1050)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We're talking here about a transfer of funds, even though no services were rendered.
[English]
According to the Auditor General, all we are talking about is the movement of funds from Public Works to L'Information essentielle, where all the deals were worked out in terms of visibility and recognition. It may not have been adequate, but all you were asked to do was transfer funds.
[Translation]
What did you do to earn the $60,000? Did you make telephone calls, write memoranda or draft letters? Did you contribute in some way to the project's continuing to move forward?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Once again, this transaction did not involve a transfer of funds, but rather, the purchase of a product, the product in this case being the series on Maurice Richard.
After that, there were in fact a great many phone calls, either to L'Information essentielle, or to our client. Yes, we wrote memoranda. Yes, we even drafted an agreement. Yes, we tried to negotiate. Yes, we did all of that. It is inaccurate to state that nothing was done. We did at least try to do that. Subsequently, as I already told you, we reviewed all the material that had been produced to ensure that at least the client was getting what he had asked for.
I also want to point out that in this case, given the number of hours that our agency staff had invested in this, it was a paying proposition, and I am not denying that. However, there were many other projects where we didn't make a cent. Again, we were responsible for one $300 sponsorship for which we were paid $3.60.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So you would accept, you buy into, the incredible argument that Mr. Chuck Guité posed to this committee, which was that yes, in some cases agencies didn't do anything for their money, but they had to arrange for loss leaders, they had to ensure that when an agency like yours took a loss on one end, as you've just talked about, they'd make up for it on another end. In other words, government was your welfare policy, your route to even things out.
So you obviously buy into--
The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis--
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I'm tying together the testimony of Mr. Guité with that of Mr. Gosselin just now when he said that sometimes they took losses. I think it's important for our deliberations to actually pursue this and get to the bottom of it.
The Chair: Well, yes, I agree, but your time is up.
Let me just point out here that in the private sector, not every contract or enterprise is a profitable one. The issue is that Mr. Guité--a public servant--or Public Works and Government Services allowed excess profits on some contracts to compensate for the fact that they knew the private sector had losses in another contract. That is illegal, and that is the question.
Did you, Mr. Gosselin, have any discussions with Mr. Guité or anybody else in Public Works to ensure that you got paid extra money on some contracts because you had lost money on others?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, Mr. Chairman, I never had any such discussions with anyone at Public Works.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Kenney, we're going to turn to you, and we'll have a break after your intervention.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm just wondering, since this is the second witness we've had from an ad agency who has basically said, with respect to the Maurice Richard series, that they helped manage the contract, could we pursue--since we're talking about four or five different agencies--how four or five agencies could have had the same mandate and whether or not there was a cooperative effort among the four or five so we can have some understanding of how this could have any merit and how it could not be seen as unethical?
The Chair: That's a point that you can ask the witness, or someone else can ask the witness.
Mr. Kenny, you have eight minutes.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gosselin seemed to be a little confused about whether he might have billed 3,673 hours in a particular year, but then went on to say that he worked very hard that year, worked himself into the hospital in fact.
Is it possible, sir, that you worked and billed the government for 3,673 hours in one year? Is that possible, for your own services?
À (1055)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It isn't impossible, but I don't have the figures in front of me.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: You've stated that you don't have the figures in front of you, but surely you are aware of an action that's been filed by Lafleur Communications at the superior court in Quebec to reclaim some $211,000 from the government, which they claim they are owed. Are you familiar with that action, because your name comes up several times in this court action?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, I am not familiar with it.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: You're not at all familiar with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not at all. I don't talk to Mr. Lafleur.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: So even though your name has been raised in the media in regard to a lawsuit between Lafleur Communications and the government over work that you did on subcontract to them, you're not aware of this lawsuit. Sir, are you very sure of that?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Lafleur can sue anybody he wants; he doesn't have to consult us. He has his own business, and I had mine. I really don't see how that is relevant.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: And as somebody who has made his living in the advertising and communications field and crisis management, you don't even pay attention when your own name is thrown around in press articles regarding a suit against the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: To be perfectly honest with you, I don't read the newspapers much these days. Mr. Desrochers understands what I mean. I don't know what history will have to say about this whole sponsorship affair, but I can tell you that it has done a great deal of damage. For example, one of my own brothers is no longer speaking to me because he thinks I'm a thief. Some newspaper articles make all kinds of assertions.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, let me read such an article, Mr. Gosselin. It appears in the February 19 edition of La Presse, and it refers to evidence introduced at the Quebec superior court by Mr. Lafleur, which includes time sheets for subcontract work that you did for Lafleur. It says--I'm translating--that in addition to the 1,177 hours made in subcontract for Lafleur and the 896 hours made by his own firm--that's your firm, Mr. Gosselin--the government lawyer, Stéphane Lilkoff, concludes that you, yourself, Mr. Gosselin, had worked 2,073 hours between the beginning of April and the end of October 1997. There are 214 days between the first of April and the thirty-first of October, which gives an average of 9.7 hours of work per day.
So this is evidence before a court introduced by your former contractor. Would you agree that you worked 1,177 billable hours during that period at an average of 9.7 hours per day, seven days a week, every week of the month?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: If those are the hours that I billed, then those are the hours I worked.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: I really admire your work ethic, sir.
Mario Parent--you gave him no consideration, financial consideration or other, for having moved to your firm shortly after signing $6 million worth of contracts on behalf of Public Works for your firm. Is that accurate?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: But why would I have given him anything?
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Because he had just benefited your firm to the tune of $6 million in contracts, for some of which you did very little work. That's why, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Excuse me, Sir, but my firm did not benefit. It took part in a competition, was selected, received contracts, delivered goods, issued invoices, and was paid. That is not what I would call benefiting. There is no connection.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Now, is it true that your son, Nicolas Gosselin, was the owner of Unicom in 1999?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: In 1999? I think so.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Now, could you explain this transaction where your son, on behalf of Unicom, purchased 288 gold watches from Birks, provided them to your firm, Groupaction-Gosselin, which then added a 17.65% commission on top of the purchase price of Unicom, and then shipped them to the government for $95,584? What exactly did the taxpayer get in terms of value added through your 17.6% commission on gold watches purchased by your son?
Á (1100)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: First of all, you are incorrect in stating that I received a contract. The contract was awarded to Gosselin Public Relations, a company that belonged to Groupaction in 1999.
After that…
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: But you were working there.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, I was working there.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: And you had nothing to do with this transaction. It was a total coincidence that your son had the subcontract.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It is totally unrelated. First of all, it wasn't my company. Second of all…
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: But was it a coincidence that your son got the subcontract? That's the point.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It wasn't a coincidence. The lowest bidder was awarded the contract. You're talking about a coincidence.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Was it a coincidence that your son got the subcontract?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Public Works Canada made a request for services. A search was conducted, there were three bidders, and the lowest bidder was awarded the contract. That is the company's practice, and always has been.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Don't you think these sorts of transactions at least look bad, sir, when you're hiring a man from the Department of Public Works shortly after having signed $6 million of contracts for you, when subcontracts are being let by your firm, which you are employed at as a senior executive, to your son, when commissions are being obtained in the order of 17% or 20% for work that effectively wasn't done, for simply shipping a bunch of gold watches over to the government? Don't you think this looks bad?
The Chair: A one-minute question.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Kenney, but that's the way it works.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: So you think it looks just perfectly transparent and above board, I guess.
What I don't understand, sir, is that you came to us with a hundred pages of documentation on post-2001 contracts, I believe knowing full well that the billable hours you charged the government were a matter of public controversy. Why didn't you come to us providing any evidence to substantiate your time sheets, the time sheets for ten hours a day, 365 days a year, seven days a week? Why didn't you bring us any evidence on that? Can you furnish us with any evidence to substantiate those time sheets?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The problem is those files are not available.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Sir, did you ever provide any hospitality or any gifts or any financial consideration to Alfonso Gagliano or any other political figures?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I do not know Mr. Gagliano personally, and I have never offered him anything.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Did your firm ever do pro bono work for the Liberal Party of Canada in terms of advertising?
The Chair: Time, Mr. Kenney.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Neither my firm nor myself have ever performed any work for the Liberal Party of Canada, nor have we ever had any connection of any kind with the Liberal Party of Canada, or made any donations to the Liberal Party of Canada.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Jason Kenney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have detailed reports from Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques filed with the Chief Electoral Officer that total $35,988 of contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada between 1993 and 2002.
The Chair: By...?
Mr. Jason Kenney: By Gosselin et Associés, by Gosselin Communications stratégiques, by Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques, etc.
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Murphy.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: But, Mr. Chairman, his question was, have they ever done work?
The Chair: No, he made a--
Mr. Jason Kenney: He never contributed, he said.
The Chair: Yes, there was a question about contribution.
Any response to that point? Any response to Mr. Kenney's point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It's important to make a distinction between Gosselin and Associates and Gosselin Public Relations, which belonged to Groupaction. Groupaction did in fact make donations to the Liberal Party of Canada on behalf of Gosselin Public Relations.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. I have a question, Mr. Gosselin. You said earlier, when I asked you about the $135 and $205, that there was absolutely no collusion between the companies because it was a very competitive business. But now you tell me that you were working for one of your companies, which was owned by Groupaction. So you were working for Groupaction, working for yourself.
So you were seeing both sides of the fence. You knew the billable rates of Groupaction, obviously, I presume, because you were working there, right?
Á (1105)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, but starting from the time I began working for Groupaction—which was on October 1, 1998—I no longer had anything whatsoever to do with the company's rates. They were Groupaction's rates. Not mine. I was an employee of Gosselin Public Relations.
[English]
The Chair: You were never told that based on the salary you received.... You must have figured it out yourself. If you get paid $10 an hour, the charge-out rate is likely around $50 an hour. If you make $50 an hour, the charge-out rate is likely $125 to $150 an hour.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, that's not the way things worked. I was a salaried employee, Mr. Chairman, and the work I performed for Gosselin Public Relations was billed by the people in finance at the firm, at a rate that I didn't even need to be familiar with, because it wasn't my firm. Indeed, I think it's important that I explain what my role was at Gosselin Public Relations.
When I sold my firm, the idea initially was that I would be retiring and that I would finally be able to sit back and collect my salary—I guess you could say, put my feet up on the desk and take it easy. But the transfer and the synergy with Groupaction did not really happen the way we had agreed it would when I originally decided to sell my assets, so I stayed on mainly to handle things like personnel management, for employees hoping to have a career at Groupaction and maybe move from public relations into advertising. But the employees were unhappy because things were not proceeding as planned. So, I spent a great deal of my time acting as an intermediary between Groupaction and the employees.
[English]
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.
I will ask you to withdraw, Mr. Gosselin, because we're going to suspend for 15 minutes.
We do not have a quorum at this time, but I would like to read a motion that I'd like to bring forward, because we're having some guests come here from Ireland. The public accounts committee of Ireland would like to come here. Mr. Kenney will very much appreciate that, I'm sure.
We have very little time, because we're tied up with meetings, so I move that the committee host a working luncheon for the members of the public accounts committee and the public accounts committee of the Republic of Ireland during the week of May 3, 2004. I imagine we're all in favour of that.
We're currently planning it for Wednesday, May 5, at 1 o'clock, but I'll need a motion when we have quorum.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We have quorum as long as no one points out on the record that we've lost quorum. You, as chair, should know that.
The Chair: We will suspend.
Á 1108
Á 1130
The Chair: We have resumed.
Would the witness please resume his position?
Mr. Murphy, you're on first, for eight minutes, please.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gosselin, my first line of questioning is on your qualifications. You're billing the government at a rate of $205 an hour. In the circles I travel in, that's an extremely high rate. So I want to question you on the qualifications you have to be able to bill a government agency at that rate.
What's your education and background?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Murphy, I am what is known as self-taught. I studied political science in university. However, I've had very extensive experience in communications. I was a reporter for Radio-Canada from 1968 to 1984. I then worked for the federal public service. I was Director General of the Public Service Centre. We managed the offices of Service Canada right across the country. We managed Reference Canada, the libraries' programs, the Canada Gazette, and so on. I then became Director of the Government of Canada's Publishing Centre. Subsequently, I was loaned by the Government of Canada to the OECD in Paris for a three-year period, where I was Director of Publications. In that capacity, we were responsible for editorial work—in other words, the decision to publish or not—text editing, preparing proposals, sales, invoicing, promotion, and marketing. I was also responsible for the OECD offices in Paris, Bonn, Washington and Tokyo. When I came back to Canada in 1989, I became Director General of Communications for Environment Canada.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: What did you do with the CBC?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I was a parliamentary correspondent in Toronto, Quebec City, and Ottawa.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: So you were a journalist.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Then you went to work for the government. Then you went to the private sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not at all. I became a federal public servant.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Okay, that's good, Mr. Gosselin.
My second question, and this is a general question.... You've said that this is bothering you and your family, and that you're under a cloud of suspicion. We've got the auditor's report and we've got the report of the quick response team. All of the auditors who have gone in and investigated these files all say the very same thing, that the documentation is not there.
My question to you, sir, is, why don't you go and use the sources you have—you say the documentation is available—and bring the documentation either to this committee or to the Office of the Auditor General, so that this morbid mess can be cleaned up, because right now we do not have the documentation on the files that your company worked on?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I repeat, Mr. Murphy, that two copies of all documentation, without exception, whether they were invoices, sponsorship reports or documents in support of invoices, were forwarded to Public Works Canada, following which payments were approved. We received a payment for that.
[English]
The Chair: That was not Mr. Murphy's question.
Hon. Shawn Murphy: My question to you is, if it's bothering you that much, why don't you--because the company is obligated by law to keep copies of these documents--go and get the documents and deliver these documents to the Office of the Auditor General or to this committee so that your name can be cleared, if you're that concerned?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The only documents I have in my possession, Mr. Murphy, are company documents. I would be the happiest man in the world if I could deliver the other documents that you are referring to. They would confirm the case I am trying to make to you. I do not have those documents. They were given to the Government of Canada. At our firm, we retained one copy for our personal files, but those files were seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
If the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is prepared to provide those documents to me…
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Gosselin, I don't accept--
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: …I will be very pleased to pass them on to you.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I don't accept that answer.
My next question to you is this. These are your documents, so why don't you go to the RCMP and ask them for copies of those documents? They have to give you copies of those documents. I know they can seize them under a warrant, but they're your documents and they would have to give you a copy if you went to the RCMP and got them. You could go tomorrow to the RCMP and say, I want a copy of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: If that is so, Mr. Murphy, I will only be too pleased to do so. However, don't forget one thing: most of the documents you are referring to concern Groupaction, rather than my firm.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: Again, Mr. Gosselin, you can go to Groupaction and explain that. This is a national issue. You're saying it's bothering you, but as far as I can see from your testimony you've made no effort at all to get the documents and give them to the Office of the Auditor General.
I'm suggesting to you that the documents don't exist, but you're saying they do, so why don't you go out and get them?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That is an excellent suggestion. Tomorrow I will certainly contact the RCMP and enquire about whether it is possible to get those files back. If that is the case, it would be great. I have every intention of clearing my reputation, Mr. Murphy. I have nothing to hide. Everything was done in a perfectly transparent manner, and everything is there.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: But you can appreciate the position we're in. We have the auditor's report--and she has a staff of 600 and a lot of them are working this file--and we had the quick response team, and they both came to the very same conclusions. Especially with respect to all the files that this Gosselin company worked on, the documents weren't there, and for some of the other companies, like the Vickers company, the documents were there.
What the taxpayers would want to see are the documents that show the production costs, the fees. I'm suggesting to you that the documents aren't there, but if they're there, I think, sir, you should be able to produce them and produce them to this committee or to the Office of the Auditor General within one week.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: We will be very pleased to deliver them. I don't know whether that will take a week. I just want to repeat one thing. My firm, Gosselin and Associates, should not be held responsible for the fact that files were lost by Public Works. There is a limit here. My lawyer has just told me that one week is much too short a timeframe in which to obtain these documents from the RCMP.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I'll leave that up to you, Mr. Gosselin. I'll go on to another question.
Mr. Gosselin, when you were running this company you were the president and chief executive officer. That in and of itself would have been a very busy job. You would have had administration, you would have had hiring and firing, you would have had marketing--there would have been a lot of work involved in running this company, I take it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not really. The board of directors would meet around a table with the accountant, once a week. I was the only member. That sort of thing doesn't take a lot of time.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: And besides service to the company and all your other clients, you were able to bill 3,700 hours to the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I did have other clients as well, but if you look at the company's invoices, you will see that although they didn't disappear completely, there were fewer and fewer of them, because we didn't have time to serve them. At least, I, personally, did not have time to serve them. So, other employees of the company handled their accounts.
As we said earlier, on average I worked 9.7 hours a day. In our business, Mr. Murphy, it is not at all unusual for someone to work 12, 15 or even 18 hours a day.
[English]
Hon. Shawn Murphy: I've been adding up all these time sheets, Mr. Gosselin. According to my quick calculations, you must be 96 years old.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Gosselin, as Mr. Murphy said, this is a national issue. It has been in the papers every day. Your name has been intimately involved with this issue in a negative sense. Yet you are trying to suggest to us, while you have two lawyers with you, one on each side, that this notion that you could get the documents from the RCMP to clear your name is a new idea that you had never thought of before. What is your counsel advising you? If you felt your name could be cleared by delivering these documents to the Auditor General, who would therefore withdraw, I'm sure, much of the information that's in her report because she said she could only look at the government files and couldn't reach out into Gosselin and Groupaction, a lot of this trouble could have been prevented. Do you think we're naive enough to think that you wouldn't have gone down this road? It would have saved your name and saved you a lot of embarrassment. You mentioned that even your brother doesn't talk to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You don't strike me as being the slightest bit naive, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply saying that since these documents were in the possession of the RCMP, I assumed that I didn't have access to them. I have found out this morning that I do. You can be sure that I will go and collect them.
[English]
The Chair: With two lawyers, one on each side?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I wasn't told.
Also, Mr. Chairman, when I sold my firm to Groupaction, I signed a confidentiality agreement which thus far has prevented me from speaking to the press. I don't have the right to talk to the press. That is very frustrating and makes things very difficult. Here I can talk, so that's what I'm doing. Otherwise, I would be legally required not to speak to the media. I can produce that document, if you wish.
[English]
The Chair: We assume there is a confidentiality agreement. But I would have thought that since your name is being dragged through....
Let's go on to another issue. You keep saying the government does all these things, and you have no control over the government.
How well did you know Mr. Guité?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, I know Mr. Guité well.
[English]
The Chair: Is it correct that your son is married to Mr. Guité's daughter?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That is not correct.
[English]
The Chair: That's false.
[Translation]
Mr. Guimond, you have eight minutes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gosselin, what was the exact date on which you sold Gosselin Communications to Groupaction?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: On October 1, 1998.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm trying to determine what you have been doing since then, up until now, say, or just about.
For how long did you remain in the employ of Groupaction? Are still working for Groupaction?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I continued to work for Groupaction until the summer of 2001, at which time I retired.
Mr. Michel Guimond: You retired.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That's correct.
Mr. Michel Guimond: How old are you, Mr. Gosselin?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I am 57 years of age, and not 86, as someone has suggested.
Mr. Michel Guimond: A friend of mine who works in the communications business in Beauport goes by the name of Patrick Gosselin. They confused him with your firm.
I would like to discuss the hot air balloon program and particularly the one in 1998. What exactly did that hot air balloon project involve back in 1998?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't know whether you're talking about the period where Gosselin and Associates were involved, or the one that relates to Gosselin Public Relations, but in any case, the program was exactly the same overall.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Groupaction Gosselin Strategic Communications: I have an invoice here that dates back to 1998.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's from Gosselin Public Relations, the company that belonged to Groupaction. Overall the program involved the following: teams from Gosselin Public Relations planned a hot air balloon tour. There were three hot air balloons: one with the Canadian flag, another with the maple leaf, and a third—the RCMP's balloon—showing a mounted policeman.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Who owned those hot air balloons?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The hot air balloons were owned by the firm of Leroux et Associés, and we would rent the hot air balloons, including the pilot and co-pilot services, as well as defraying the transportation costs of these two individuals, paying for their accommodations, and so on.
On our side, we also had a team that was responsible for planning the tour. It's important to understand that these three hot air balloons were supposed to be involved in community events. So, all of that had been planned and we had to make arrangements so that the hot air balloon would not be scheduled for one event in British Columbia one morning and for another one in Newfoundland the following evening.
We made all the arrangements for this to be a tour. Along the way there were festivals and other activities. You have to realize that hot air balloons like these ones add tremendously to a festival's visibility.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Were the hot air balloons rented at the same hourly rate? Was the cost just about the same?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I believe one of them costs more than the other two. I think it was the RCMP balloon.
Mr. Michel Guimond: A lot more. How does that work? Do you rent them by the hour, the day or for a specific event?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Leroux negotiated an agreement with Public Works, in this case with Mr. Guité. We were responsible for managing the project, and we rented the hot air balloons at a rate that had been pre-determined by Public Works Canada.
Mr. Michel Guimond: As regards the rental cost of the hot air balloon showing a mounted policeman. I have a note dated August 21, 1998 from Gosselin Communications that is addressed to Mr. Guité. It reads as follows: “The total rental cost for the hot air balloon representing a mounted policeman for the proposed itinerary”, and there there is an itinerary for May, June, July, August, September, and October, “is $269,300.”
In that case, how much was paid to Mr. Leroux and how much to Gosselin Communications?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: He was paid $269,300, the amount you mentioned. Mr. Leroux is the one who received that money.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I added 17.65 per cent to that amount.
Mr. Michel Guimond: For what, exactly?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: For coordinating the program, Mr. Guimond, because all they were supplying were the hot air balloons, a truck to haul them, a trailer, a pilot and a co-pilot. They are not the ones who decided which festival we would be participating in, how many events there would be, or who would be riding in the hot air balloon. Was it to be the mayor or the local member of Parliament? Would a contest be organized around the whole event?
Mr. Michel Guimond: As part of the project management, to justify that 17.65% of the project budget, the assumption had to be that Mr. Leroux, the one renting them, didn't have any…
You were also responsible for handling liaison with Public Works Canada, were you not?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Michel Guimond: That means that Mr. Leroux would not ordinarily have had to be in contact with Public Works, is that correct?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: He did, though, because he is the person who sold the program to Public Works Canada. He is the one who convinced them to buy it.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So, that means…
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The program was not organized. He just wanted to rent his hot air balloons. It was all very well to want to rent hot air balloons, but a program needed to be developed around them.
Mr. Michel Guimond: So he had contacted the Department initially to sell them the project, but once it had been approved, you took over. Is that right?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Once you had been entrusted with the job of managing the sponsorship, Mr. Leroux had no reason to deal with Public Works Canada, right?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That's right. He dealt with us at that point.
Mr. Michel Guimond: In the course of your career, have you ever socialized with Mr. Guité, either through Gosselin Communications or at the time you were with Groupaction?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: As part of my duties, yes.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Can you give us some examples of what those social activities might have included?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well, the Sound of Light show at the Casino, for example.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Anything else?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't know. A couple of events like that were organized.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Events that you…
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You see, when there is a sponsorship event and as part of the sponsorship, the organizer gives out tickets, those tickets don't belong to Gosselin Communications; they belong to the Department of Public Works, which decides how they will be used. They can be given to members of Parliament, to clients, and so on. So, when such events were organized, we would obviously end up being in the same places at the same time.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Have you ever done any boating with Mr. Guité on his boat? Mr. Guité told us he liked boating. Have you ever been on his boat?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, once, on the Ottawa River, with my wife and his.
Mr. Michel Guimond: In 1998-99, we noted a sponsorship of $6,000 for the National Unity Council. Do you remember what that money was used for?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: What was the name of the sponsorship?
Mr. Michel Guimond: It was for the National Unity Council—a sponsorship of $6,000 in 1998-99.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I am absolutely incapable of answering that question. I don't know.
Once again, however, that was under Groupaction.
Mr. Michel Guimond: If I told you it was for a golf tournament, would that ring a bell?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not at all. I never took part in any such golf tournament.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Did you or your firm ever perform any partisan work for the Liberal Party of Canada?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, never.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Never.
As regards the 1995 referendum—I make a distinction between that and partisan work for the Liberal Party of Canada—did you perform any work during the referendum?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Should I answer that? Yes? Well, first of all, that is not really connected to the Auditor General's comments. But to answer your question…
Mr. Michel Guimond: Please answer. We are examining the witness's credibility. You have two lawyers present.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The answer is no, Mr. Guimond. You did ask me if I had performed any work on it, did you not? No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Did you perform any work during the referendum…
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt here.
I understand from Mr. Guité that all the work Gosselin and the other advertising agencies were doing was primarily to do with selling Canada to Quebec because of the political situation. I'm not sure Mr. Guimond was clear in his question when he said, did you do any work? Was he talking about you as a personal individual or you as a person who owned a company that was doing sponsorship programming? For you to come back and say the answer was no, I thought, was rather surprising because I thought you, as an owner of a company, would have been intimately involved in sponsoring Canada around the referendum time, so perhaps you will want to elaborate on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I find your question a little strange. I am not a politician, I have never been involved in politics, and I have no intention of doing so either. I have never been involved in politics. Do you understand what I'm saying? I am not some kind of Canadian hero. I had PR work to perform, and that's what I did. And the fact is that we did very good work.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Guimond, you have 30 seconds for the last question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: You answered by saying that you had not performed any work as part of the referendum. I suspect you are simply playing with words here. Were you involved, in any way whatsoever, in the 1995 referendum campaign?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I was never involved in any way either in the 1995 campaign, nor in any other campaign, nor in any political party, Mr. Guimond.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Did Gosselin Communications make any contributions to political parties?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Gosselin Public Relations made political contributions. That firm belongs to Groupaction. You should ask them why they did so.
Mr. Michel Guimond: But during your tenure as President of the firm, did you not make political contributions? You were the President.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, I did not.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Guimond.
I'm trying to get it clear in my mind, Mr. Gosselin, about the balloon and the $269,000 rental paid by the Government of Canada.
These balloons, if I'm right, aren't ones you just slap a different decal on every week, depending on who's hired them out. These balloons, I think, are specially made, with the logos of whatever they're advertising built right into them. Now, I can't imagine that someone would go out and have a balloon made with, say, the Government of Canada wordmark slapped right across it unless they knew there was a market, a guaranteed market, for that balloon.
But I would have thought that the first question from the owner, the Mr. Leroux you were talking about, would have been...or I would have thought he'd have had a guarantee from the Government of Canada that they would hire his balloon for x number of dollars, or the Government of Canada would have said, we will have a balloon made with the wordmark on it, because it's our balloon.
Now, can you perhaps tell us, first of all, how many balloons there were? Were they owned by Mr. Leroux? Or who owned these balloons, and on what basis--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe the witness was already asked those exact questions.
The Chair: No, he wasn't. He just talked about the rental.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, and in response to questions from Mr. Guimond, he said they rented the balloons--
The Chair: From Mr. Leroux.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, and that the rental tariff had already been predetermined by CCSB, negotiated by Mr. Guité.
The Chair: Yes, and I want to know--
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So there's the answer to your question.
The Chair: --if there was a long-term contract. They charge, say, $100 or $200 an hour. These things don't come cheap. He must have had a guarantee that he was going to at least recover his costs.
So what kind of long-term contract did Mr. Leroux have? Or did the Government of Canada own the balloon?
[Translation]
M. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well I think you would have to put that question to Mr. Leroux and Mr. Guité. Mr. Leroux is the one that took the risk; not me. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Madam Jennings, eight minutes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gosselin, for being with us today and for all the documentation you have provided regarding events which the firm was involved in managing between 2001 and 2003, and also for clarifying, to some extent, the reason why you were unable to provide us with documents relating to contracts your firm was awarded through the Sponsorship Program between 1997 and 2001. You say those documents were seized by the RCMP.
However, I would like to briefly return to the period from 1997 to 2000 or 2001. Do you have any idea of the number of events your firm would have been involved in managing under the Sponsorship Program, and can you at least tell us what the total amount would have been, even if you're unable to provide us with an amount for each of the events?
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the committee was given that information by the quick response team. I don't think the witness needs to go through that information. We have it right here. We have a list right in front of us.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I understand that. We should perhaps give one to the witness.
Thank you.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Excuse me, but where did we get this documentation? I notice the clerk is squinting here.
Do you have it?
The Chair: Madam Ablonczy, you said the quick response team gave it to us yesterday?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: No, they didn't.
Mr. Clerk, do you have that?
You never gave that to me.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's on their website.
The Chair: Could you give that copy to the witness? Thank you.
Madam Jennings, you may continue with your questions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You are going to be given a copy right away. That's great. The information is all there regarding the number of events. Can you explain generally what your company did, in relation to each of these events?
You have come here. You have told us that it was your firm that developed the standard agreement that it required all event organizers or organizing committees to sign once the Sponsorship Program had approved a sponsorship and your company had been awarded the contract to manage it. You also say that after developing a 37 point action plan to improve the management and administration of the sponsorship program, the government decided to use the agreement you had developed. So, generally speaking, even though you can't talk about each of the events, say what work you performed and what documents you provided to the government, as stipulated in the contracts you had signed with the government. These are documents that the Auditor General and the audit team did not find in government files.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Thank you very much for your question. I think it's very relevant.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So do I. That's why I asked it.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I want to commend you for that.
The list that you are referring to is a list that was published on the Internet. So, it is available to everyone. I did a quick calculation. I developed a colour code to try and determine which sponsorship projects were managed by my firm and which were managed by Groupaction. This is a very quick calculation that I made as I was sitting at the table. I arrived at a figure of about $13.9 million worth of sponsorship projects that were assigned to Gosselin and Associates—in other words, in 1997 and 1998, until I sold my firm on October 1, 1998.
As I was explaining this morning, projects of a value of approximately two thirds of the total amount were carried out outside of Quebec. Of course, I'm not in a position to tell you exactly what we did, contract by contract. But I am going to cite some examples, because I think it's important to explain to you exactly what kind of work we performed and what services we provided to the Government of Canada.
First of all, when the contracts were issued, there were three different columns of figures. There was one column where we recorded the amount of the sponsorship, a second one which showed the sponsorship commission, and a third column for sponsorship-related operations. That includes production costs and professional fees.
I would just like to give you a couple of examples by way of illustration. Let's take the example of the Canadian Tulip Festival here in Ottawa. There is a sponsorship per se, and there are also the operations surrounding that sponsorship. Allow me to explain what is meant by the term “sponsorship operations”. As a general rule, any company engaged in sponsorship management that invests $100,000 in a sponsorship also invests about $100,000 in operational costs. The fact is that you want to take advantage of every opportunity to promote the client's products.
In the case of the Canadian Tulip Festival, promotional materials were produced, including t-shirts, polo-shirts, caps, jackets, and gardening aprons. The client—meaning the Department of Public Works—asked us to produce these articles. I don't remember all the details, but I believe that approximately 50% of the costs of these promotional materials were paid by the Department of Public Works—in other words, out of the production column, provided that the Government of Canada's logo appeared on all these promotional articles. The Canadian Tulip Festival therefore received the sponsorship and also received these promotional articles and materials, that they then sold, thereby allowing them to raise additional funds.
Through another sponsorship involving the Tree Canada Foundation, we also developed a Youth Tree Ambassador Program. Mr. Gauthier had told us that there was a major problem promoting the Canadian Tulip Festival outside of the Ottawa-Hull, Montreal and Toronto regions. He said that outside of those areas, few people were aware of the festival.
So, with the Tree Canada Foundation, we developed the idea of youth ambassadors. In each of the provinces and territories, these youth ambassadors, acting on behalf of the Canadian Tulip Festival, would create beds of tulips in front of provincial and territorial parliamentary buildings. Of course, around that there are always such activities as media relations, public relations, and so on. There are also opportunities for members of Parliament or local personalities to speak to members of the public and, in the case of the Canadian Tulip Festival, to raise awareness of its program outside of the province. So, we staged all of that. We also participated in the flotilla. That is where allegorical floats are featured on the Rideau Canal. As well… I can't remember now. However, we were very much involved in organizing the event and we really helped the organizers achieve even more visibility.
That is one example.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much.
I want to come back to the invoicing of the hours you worked. This was mentioned several times today: approximately 3,600 hours were billed in a single calendar or fiscal year. On average, that represented 10 hours a day, 365 days a year. You said that if the time sheets where an employee records the number of hours worked and the file on which he worked have your name on them, that means that those hours were actually worked.
That year, were you still the owner, or were you an employee?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I assume you're talking about 1997. I was the owner of Gosselin and Associates then.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You were the owner and you say that you remember working very hard that year.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It was an absolute crazy year, Ms. Jennings.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Without questioning the number of hours worked, what that means is that you worked solely on government files under the Sponsorship Program. Indeed, it was when the program was audited that these invoices came out. So, you didn't work for any private clients. You only worked on government files and had no other activity. You had no social life.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that is somewhat of an understatement.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: But you are not able to confirm that the total number of hours billed is accurate.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, I don't have the information I need to confirm that. But there is every reason to believe that what you are saying is true. You have proper documentation. What I'm saying is that is plausible.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Do you remember whether, in the course of that year, your firm worked on Canadian Government contracts other than those awarded through the Sponsorship Program?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't know exactly what period you are referring to. Do you have the exact dates? I don't have those documents. I don't know exactly what you're referring to.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's in the…
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to have to cut you off there, Madam Jennings. You are over your nine minutes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I will look for it and show it to you.
[English]
The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy, please, for eight minutes.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Gosselin, as you are well aware, both the Auditor General and the internal government quick response team found a pervasive lack of documentation in sponsorship files. You've said that your files have been seized by the RCMP. Can you tell us, sir, when those files were seized?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The files seized by the RCMP are not really my files; they are Groupaction files. I had left Gosselin and Associates files at Groupaction, because it's important to understand that where sponsorships are concerned, from one year to the next, you are dealing with the same event organizers. I left them there simply because I thought they could be useful to others. To my knowledge, the files were seized in the spring of 2002, if I'm not mistaken. In fact, I think it was in all the newspapers. They seized…
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I just need the date, sir. The files were seized in the spring of 2002. Is that what you're saying?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Listen, I cannot confirm that it was in the spring of 2002. But from what I can recall, it probably was around that time. But that information is public; it was all over the newspapers.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: When the Auditor General and the quick response team did their audit, I assume they would have spoken with you. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: You say they spoke to me?
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No. No one ever spoke to me.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No, they did not because they were not able. The Auditor General was not able to speak with you because her audit is limited to government files. But did the quick response team ever talk to you?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No. It did not. No one ever contacted me. I would have liked them to contact me.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Knowing that an audit was going on, did you provide any information to the audit team, or make sure they had information?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I didn't feel it directly concerned me. The way I see it, my papers have always been in order.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Gosselin, I just want to clarify your position with the various iterations of your company. You were the owner of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct. I was the owner of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc. from 1992 until September 30, 1998.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What was your position with Gosselin Associés Communications stratégiques?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I was the Chief Executive Officer of Gosselin and Associates.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What was your position with Gosselin Relations publiques Inc.?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I was a Special Advisor to the President of Groupaction and Chairman of the Board of Directors.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What was your position with Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques?
Is it the same company as Gosselin Relations publiques Inc.? It has a different name.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: There are two companies involved, Ms. Ablonczy. There is one company called Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc., of which I was the founding President, sole shareholder and Director General from 1992 until September 30, 1998.
On October 1, 1998, I sold all of my firm's assets to a numbered company belonging to Groupaction, which subsequently was called Gosselin Public Relations. Within that firm, I was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Special Advisor to the President of Groupaction, Mr. Jean Brault.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What was your position with Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It seems to me you just asked me that question. I'll repeat the answer.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay. Let me clarify it for you.
I was talking about Gosselin Relations publiques Inc. You told me that you were chairman of the board for Gosselin Relations publiques Inc. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes. With Gosselin Public Relations…
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Now, I'm going to ask you about another company, Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques. What was your position with that company?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No such company exists, Ms. Ablonczy. That is not correct. There are two companies. On the one hand, Gosselin…
[English]
The Chair: That's not the question, Mr. Gosselin. The company did exist. What was your position at that time?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Well, I cannot hold a position in a company that doesn't exist.
[English]
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Chair, a point of order.
The Chair: A point of order, Mr. Proulx.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: There has to be something that's not working with translation here, because I can understand her question in English and I can understand his answer very clearly in French. If she doesn't get it through translation, it's not the witness' problem.
The Chair: She's pointing out that there are a number of companies that have virtually the same name. We find that unless you ask the question exactly “right on the head”, Mr. Gosselin will say it wasn't an appropriate question. Therefore, Ms. Ablonczy is perfectly correct in trying to go through all these companies that have virtually the same name.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: I apologize, Mr. Chair. He answered that the company did not exist. What more do you want?
The Chair: She wanted to know what his position was.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: He said it didn't exist.
The Chair: Well, it did exist, I presume.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: His answer was that it didn't exist. If she doesn't get it through translation, it's not his fault.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Proulx—
The Chair: You speak to the chair, Madam.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: —I'm quite capable, thank you very much, of conducting the examination of the witness. I appreciate your assistance.
Mr. Marcel Proulx: My point of order was with the chair.
The Chair: Order, here. You talk to the chair, please.
Madam Ablonczy, please continue.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Gosselin, in 2000, a company did exist named Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques. My question is, what was your position with that company?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Okay. To my knowledge, there is no company that ever had that name. I think the confusion lies in the fact that the list provided to Committee members contains all kinds of names: Groupaction Marketing, Gosselin Strategic Communications Inc., Gosselin Groupaction, and Gosselin Public Relations.
The fact is there are two companies: one company by the name of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc., which existed from 1992 until September 30, 1998…
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Gosselin, I understand your position with all of those other companies. But there is another company, Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques. I know that company existed because it's listed on the Elections Canada website as having made contributions to the Liberal Party. So it is not a fictitious company, unless Elections Canada is in the habit of making up companies and fictitious donations for those companies. I'm assuming that's not correct. So I have a very simple question: what was your position with that company?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I held no position.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Even though your name is connected, you had no connection at all with the company.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Perhaps the confusion surrounding all of this is related to the fact that Groupaction… Listen, that's entirely their decision. They may have decided to use that name as a trade name. But to my knowledge, from what I know of Groupaction—and there again, you are asking me to answer on behalf of Groupaction—a numbered company belonging to Groupaction purchased the assets of my firm and subsequently gave that firm the name Gosselin Public Relations Inc., a company where I was Chairman of the Board of Directors and Special Advisor to Mr. Jean Brault.
[English]
The Chair: It would be helpful if you were more forthcoming, Mr. Gosselin. It took Mrs. Ablonczy about three minutes to get an answer on that particular company.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, Mr. Chairman. On a point of order. I think everyone in this room fully understood Mr. Gosselin's explanations. I find it strange that you and Ms. Ablonczy required the information to be repeated several times and for the witness to give his answer over and over. Don't blame the witness if you didn't understand an explanation that everyone else in this room understood.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, we have copies of correspondence from Huguette Tremblay to Groupaction Gosselin Communications stratégiques. It's listed on the Elections Canada website.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Does she have a point of order?
[English]
The Chair: She's on a point of order.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, it took me almost my whole time--
Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly.
The Chair: Order, please.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: --to try to get him to acknowledge that company existed. He must have known very well that it did. It was not a mystery. I resent the fact, Mr. Chairman, that with the small amount of time I have, the witness would not just say, “This is how I was connected to that company.” We know it existed.
The Chair: We're fully aware of his response, Mr. Proulx. Mrs. Ablonczy wanted to press the issue, which she's entitled to do.
Mr. Gosselin, I have a question.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is Mr. Mills' turn to question the witness, and not the Chair's turn.
[English]
The Chair: I will ask a question first.
Mr. Gosselin, when you sold the Gosselin company to Groupaction, did you give them the authority to continue to use the name Gosselin even though it was owned by Groupaction? I believe you said you had two companies. You sold one to Groupaction. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No. I sold the assets of Gosselin and Associates. Those assets include the goodwill, the use of the trade name, and the clients. Those are the company assets. I did not sell any shares; I sold the firm's assets. I had only one company and it was called Gosselin and Associates.
[English]
The Chair: You said you sold the assets, the files, the furniture, and the goodwill. But they also, I believe, got the name. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct. That's right. They did indeed keep the name. I sold the name. That may have been a mistake, but I sold the name. If I had to do it all over again, I would not do that. You see, Mr. Chairman, when the member here refers…
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Jennings.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that in future, every time you begin to question the witness, the clerks start the clock so that at the end of the session, we know exactly how much time you have spent asking questions, compared to Committee members.
[English]
The Chair: Well, as I said, Madam Jennings, we're not going to put a gag on the chair. So we'll just leave it--
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I didn't say that. My request is intended to allow us to have an idea of exactly how much time you take questioning the witnesses. For example, we know that Mr. MacKay has already had eight minutes…
[English]
The Chair: You will find out--
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: …as have Ms. Ablonczy and myself.
[English]
The Chair: And Mr. Murphy--
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Let me finish, Mr. Chairman. I was in the process of naming everyone. I include myself, and I was also going to name Mr. Thibault. However, we don't know how much time you have had to put questions to the witness. It seems to me that it has been more than 10 minutes, not to mention the eight minutes for every Committee member. I just want to know how much time you're taking.
[English]
The Chair: Well, as I say, we're not going to put a gag on the chair, first of all, Madam Jennings. The other thing you will notice, for example--and Mr. Murphy and others--is that when the witness did not give complete elaboration to the answer, I followed up to get the full facts on behalf of the intervener.
We're going to leave it there.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You're on the defensive, Mr. Chairman. It would seem you don't really want people to know how much time you are using to question the witnesses.
[English]
The Chair: It's not a situation that you count the time of the chair.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Oh, that's interesting!
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Gosselin, you had two companies. Give me the names, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I had one company by the name of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications. I will give you the number of that company. If you refer to the Registry of Canadian Companies, you will have all the information you need. The number of the company was 3364577, and it was sold…
[English]
The Chair: So was this a numbered company operating under a trade name?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, it was not a numbered company. All companies have a number. The firm was incorporated and was assigned a number. I only mentioned the number because the correct registry to refer to is the Industry Canada Registry, as opposed to the Chief Electoral Officer's Registry. I'm giving you the numbers, so feel free to check them.
[English]
The Chair: I didn't ask about it; I asked you the name of the two companies you have. There are two companies you said. What are the names?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I repeat: the full name, which appears in the Industry Canada Registry, is 3364577 Canada Inc., Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc. That firm was sold to 3522610 Canada Inc., Gosselin Public Relations Inc.
[English]
The Chair: I'm not aware, and as I say, I live in the province of Alberta and I'm an accountant there, not a lawyer, but if you have a numbered company, 12345 Alberta Ltd.--just a minute, I'm trying to explain--then you may have a trade name such as Gosselin Communications, but you can't have Gosselin Communications Inc.
Am I right, Ms. Ablonczy? You can't have Gosselin Communications Inc., which is actually 12345 Alberta Inc. You can't have “Incorporated” behind both names.
You're trying to tell me there's a numbered company and an incorporated company. I'm quite confused here, Mr. Gosselin. You'll have to answer, but your lawyers can perhaps give you the answer as to how this happens. Maybe in the province of Quebec you can have a numbered company, 12345 Quebec Inc., operating as Gosselin Communications Inc., but it's not legitimate in Alberta.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify one thing. This is not a numbered company. The number you have just been given is the number that appears in the Industry Canada Registry, which lists the names of all incorporated Canadian companies. That is the registration number. The legal name of the company follows that registration number. If you want to know where and when Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications was registered, you can request that information from Industry Canada, which will look in the registry and be in a position to provide us with the registration number—not the company number—but the Industry Canada registration number.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, I'm aware.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So it's not a numbered company. If it had been a numbered company, it would have given the numbers that he gave us, and then it would have had a comma, 12345 Incorporated.
The Chair: That's exactly what he said.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, it's not. He gave the registration number.
The Chair: Well, let me ask him again. What is the name of the company?
I said what are the names of the two companies?
Just a minute. I'm going to get the answer to this. I want the names of the two companies, the legal names of the two companies.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Can I have a minute?
The Chair: No, we're just going to wait for this.
Perhaps we'll allow the lawyer to speak here.
Mr. Leduc, can you just tell us the legal names of the two companies?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Leduc (Counsel to Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin, As Individual): The legal name of Mr. Gosselin's firm was 3364577 Canada Inc., operating under the name of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc.
[English]
The Chair: Now, let me ask the law clerk. The “Inc.” was after the numbered company, and you're saying you did business under, what's the name, Gosselin Communications Inc.?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Leduc: Strategic Communications Inc. is the name under which the numbered company 3364577 Canada Inc. was operating.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Walsh, in your opinion, is that legitimate?
Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Can I first ask, are these in Quebec?
[Translation]
Are these companies that are incorporated in Quebec?
Mr. Pierre Leduc: No, they are federal companies.
Mr. Rob Walsh: They're federal.
Mr. Pierre Leduc: Yes, since the name includes the words “Canada Inc.”.
Mr. Rob Walsh: Yes, that's the name of the corporation. The numbers represent the corporate name.
Mr. Pierre Leduc: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Rob Walsh: But it is also possible to have another name, which is the trade name.
Mr. Pierre Leduc: It's the trade name…
Mr. Rob Walsh: …of the company.
Mr. Pierre Leduc: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Rob Walsh: I believe that is possible.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Walsh, if you have a numbered company operating under a trade name, can you have “Inc.” at the end of that, suggesting that it is a registered company?
[Translation]
Mr. Rob Walsh: I believe so, but I will check, Mr. Chairman, and report back to you later.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. We'll find that out.
What was the other company?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Leduc: The second company, the one whose assets, including the name or use of the name, were sold, is 3522610 Canada Inc.
[English]
The Chair: Can I have the number again, 352...?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Leduc: The number of the company is 3522610 Canada Inc., and that company goes by the name of Gosselin Public Relations Inc.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Mills, for eight minutes.
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I want to take 30 seconds to address the clerk. I'm sure Public Works is watching these debates. On their general list of events, status by province, under 1998-99, I'd like the contracts for 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, and 496; and for the year 1999-2000, contracts 1010, 1011, and 1012. I'm sure that Public--
The Chair: We'll ask the clerks as well, just to get a formal....
Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm sure they're listening, and if they could send those over to me tomorrow, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Gosselin, I want to deal a little bit with your $600,000 a year. You're a senior executive in the advertising industry, and quite frankly, for someone of your stature, I don't find a wage of $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 a year out of line. What I am having difficulty understanding is the billing system. I don't think there's a member of Parliament here who works fewer than 60, 70, 75 hours a week. I can't imagine that. The rate is a little different, obviously. But I'm trying to figure out how you would calculate and quantify your contribution to this overall program. Were there rules in Public Works or in government that say you can pay a creative consultant only a certain amount? Is there time and a half? I don't know if there's even a cap on lawyers in the Government of Canada. Does the Department of Justice have a rate per hour for lawyers?
How did you quantify...or what was your system of calculating this fee, which was approximately $40,000 a month?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: First of all, it is incorrect to say that I was making $40,000 a month in fees. I didn't prepare this invoice; the company did. I was a salaried employee of the company. Whether or not I bring $200,000 or $600,000 a year into the company makes no difference: I am still a salaried employee with a pre-determined fixed salary. The same applies to all the other employees working for the firm.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay. Were there expenses out of that fee for your company? In other words, this fee didn't go to you personally; there were operational expenses in terms of a contribution to the overhead of operating the business. Or was this the personal fee?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I am not sure I understand your question.
Perhaps I could try to explain the accounting system that was in place. Every employee…
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Gosselin, before you answer that question, I want to tell you where I'm coming from. As the chairman always states here, we are a committee of accountability, and I always add that we're trying to illustrate to Canadians where we feel we had value for money and where there is a cloud over whether or not we got value for money.
A lot of Canadians would think, how could that possibly be, $600,000 over a year? So I'm trying to get to the bottom of how this happened, what you did for it, or what deductions and expenses there were for that amount of money.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I couldn't possibly tell you, because I was not responsible for doing the invoicing. One thing is for certain, however, and that is that I worked very hard that year. In fact, the Bluenose contract kept me extremely busy. This was a project that required many, many hours of work. As I was explaining earlier, we put in very long hours, from about 6 or 7 in the morning until 11, midnight, 1 o'clock or even 2 in the morning sometimes. And that was the way it was seven days a week. There is also all the preparatory work that was required for the Bluenose project. The project actually began in April, when we went to Lunenburg. There was a great deal of preparation to be done. We had to visit each of the stops on the tour. There were 33 in all. I had to make arrangements with every municipality. There was a comprehensive program established for the Bluenose project.
Let me give you an example. Every time the captain arrived in a municipality, there was immediately a meeting with the mayor and an official ceremony. The captain would present him with the letter that the mayor of the municipality last visited had given him. In exchange, he would give him a letter that would be presented to the next municipality. After that, there were press conferences, as well as radio and television interviews to be set up. We had to prepare press reviews, and look after the staff. And that was the pace throughout.
So, we really did work extremely hard that summer.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: When lawyers book their hours, they say they have dockets recording their time and the amount.
Did you have some kind of an accounting system that monitored where you went and what you did? Is there something that you could produce for the committee that could somehow substantiate your calendar and the activities you participated in? Is there some kind of document that could back this up?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, of course; there are the time cards completed for that entire period. If Committee members would like me to provide those, I would be very pleased to do so.
[English]
Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I think that's most important, Mr. Chair, because to have the time sheets backing up all of these hours would allay most of the concerns people have on this particular point.
I really don't have any other questions, Mr. Chair. So if you want to use the rest of my time, you can.
The Chair: We'll move over to Mr. Tonks, please.
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): You're going to get a lot of time, Mr. Chairman, as I was going to offer you half of mine.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Gosselin, thank you for being here. I'm sure there's a great deal of stress associated with the context of all of these events, but the committee is trying to understand, on behalf of the taxpayers, just exactly how to respond to the Auditor General's report. So within that context, I have a few questions.
When Mr. Parent was working for CCSB, would you agree that during the period of time when you were dealing with the Maurice Richard, Bluenose, and other contracts, you would have been dealing with Mr. Parent in his capacity as project director at CCSB?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, he wasn't my contact at the Communications Coordination Services Branch. I dealt with Mr. Guité, not with Mr. Parent.
[English]
I was dealing with Mr. Guité.
Mr. Alan Tonks: You never dealt with him on a day-to-day basis. Okay.
But you did know, then, that Mr. Parent would have been a key person within the organization of the CCSB with respect to the administration and the dealing with the agencies of record? That would be one of his roles.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, he did in fact play an administrative role with the agencies. But I really didn't know Mr. Parent very well at that point.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see.
You do appreciate, though, that there would almost be the perception—if not a material case—when you had hired him that he would possibly favour an agency such as your own?
Do you see that in retrospect? You might not have seen it at the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Of course, in retrospect I can certainly see how there could be that perception, which is in fact perfectly legitimate. I understand why you may have that opinion, but it's important for you to understand that at the time I was managing these contracts that Mr. Parent signed… The fact is I had no contact with him and I had no idea that one day he would end up working for our firm. It's just that at one point, he decided to retire or take advantage of early retirement—I'm not sure which—and came knocking at our door looking for a job. But I didn't know that at the time.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: But you did say you had a concern, to the extent that you checked whether he would have a problem with a conflict of interest, or whatever. So that would indicate that at that time you wanted that to certainly not be an issue.
Can you tell the committee who you talked to in clearing whether there was any conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Parent coming to your firm?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: First, I put the question directly to Mr. Parent. Because I am a former federal public servant myself, I knew that there were rules respecting post-employment—I believe that's what it's called—and I told him that in my opinion, he would not be able to work there because he would be in a conflict of interest. He told me that was not true, that he had checked with the people responsible for these policies—people at the Public Service Commission, I assume—and that he had been told by them that he would not be in a conflict of interest.
I called Mr. Guité about this, because I was very concerned. He told me there was absolutely no problem and that at his level, he could accept a job after retiring.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: Then I would take it from your answer, Mr. Gosselin, that you would be surprised to know that under the values and ethics code for the public service, in the section called “Before Leaving Office”, it states that “public servants must disclose, in a Confidential Report to their Deputy Head, all firm offers of employment that could place them in a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest situation”. And it goes on to say that former public servants shall not, within a period of a year, accept employment with entities in which they personally, or their subordinates, had officials dealings. It would seem that Mr. Parent would have had dealings not just with you but with other companies.
So having been informed of that, I guess you can see how it places the committee in a very difficult position, because it would appear that there was a conscious decision to circumvent the provisions of the code of ethics. I would suggest that's quite a serious thing, to maintain the confidence of the public.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: That's precisely why I was concerned about this and put the question to both Mr. Parent and Mr. Guité. Both of them told me he was not in a conflict of interest. If you tell me today that he was, then that must mean I was not told the truth.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: I would take it you...well, we can draw the conclusions from that.
Did you have contracts with the National Capital Commission?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, although there were some things we had to do with the National Capital Commission. We were project managers for the National Snow Sculpture Competition right here in front of the Parliament buildings. So, we had to negotiate the space to be used for that with the National Capital Commission, since they're responsible for managing Government of Canada lands. To be part of Winterlude, I believe we had to pay $5,000 or $10,000 a year just to have the right to be a partner. In addition to that, I think we also had to pay $7,000 or $8,000 for damage caused to the lawn in front of the Parliament buildings following the event. Those are the only contacts we had with them.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. Did you have any relatives or employees who worked for the National Capital Commission, Mr. Gosselin?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not to my knowledge.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.
Mr. Gosselin, I thank you, on behalf of the committee, for the very comprehensive documentation you have given us. Concerns have been raised with respect to visibility, projections, such things as rates under the accounts--what rates of pay would be in hours--and also a post-mortem report.
The committee would perhaps want to know if the same level of documentation was submitted to Ms. Huguette Tremblay for the pre-2001 period.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, absolutely. It's exactly what I showed you this morning. We used the same procedure. It was the same agreement that we had developed as early as the summer of 1997, with the annex that organizers would sign and the report detailing all the visibility elements received by the Government of Canada in consideration of its sponsorship.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.
Would you be surprised to know that Ms. Tremblay, when she appeared before the committee, gave the impression that there were absolutely no rules, no processes, no expectations with respect to that level of documentation, something the committee found quite shocking? Would you be surprised to know that about her testimony?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, not at all. I knew full well that there were no rules and I wanted the Government of Canada to be protected and for the proper reports to be submitted. I did that of my own volition; it was my initiative.
[English]
Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
I'm still back on this numbered company thing. You mentioned that you had two companies, I believe. I'll give the numbers. I believe they are 3364577 Canada Inc., operating as Gosselin et Associés Communications stratégiques Inc., and also 3522610 Canada Inc., operating as Gosselin Relations publiques Inc. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Am I correct in saying that the assets--
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, I believe you said that I had two companies. I did not have two companies. I had one company and I subsequently sold it to another company.
[English]
The Chair: So there was only one company, and you sold the assets, the furniture, the goodwill, the files, etc., to the second company, which is 3522610 Canada Inc. Did you sell the name as well? Was that part of the assets that were sold?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, of course. That is part of selling your assets.
[English]
The Chair: Since you only owned one company, why were you doing business as Gosselin Communications stratégiques Inc., Gosselin Communications, and Groupaction Gosselin Communications? Three names show up. One shows up under the quick response team sponsorship file review. I see Gosselin Communications stratégiques Inc., Gosselin Communications, and Groupaction Gosselin Communications. So Gosselin shows up under three different categories, none of them being the numbered company you own. Perhaps you can tell us why we have these three names. It appears that you had more than one trading name. Why was that?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. Chairman, I have no control over that list. I am not the one who prepared it.
[English]
The Chair: Were you doing business under the name of Gosselin Communications stratégiques Inc.?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Was I doing business? Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Were you also doing business as Gosselin Communications?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't understand your question.
[English]
The Chair: Were you also doing business as Gosselin Communications?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: It is possible that name was used on occasion as a trade name, but the legal identity of the firm was Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc.
[English]
The Chair: You had two trade names: Gosselin Communications stratégiques Inc. and Gosselin Communications.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Until September 30, 1998, the firm went by the name of Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc. After October 1, there was a second name belonging to Groupaction, which was Gosselin Public Relations. Perhaps all the confusion is related to the fact that you have a list of three names here. But that does not mean there are three companies. There are two companies. And as I say, perhaps the confusion stems from the fact…
[English]
The Chair: I know you said there were only two companies. How many trading names did you have? Did you have more than one? You said you had one company.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I had one official name which was Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc.
[English]
The Chair: I know the official name. How many trading names did you have?
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Trading names
[Translation]
means the “raison sociale”, if I'm not mistaken. I operated under the name, Gosselin and Associates Strategic Communications Inc.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. MacKay, for eight minutes.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gosselin, I want to ask you some straightforward questions. You've gone over some of this. I want to be unequivocal. Did you, through your companies or personally, at any time, directly or indirectly, donate to the Liberal Party of Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: At no time did my company or I personally make a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the NDP, or anyone else.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you for that clarification.
I believe you told Mr. Tonks a moment ago that you were aware, either through Mr. Guité or Ms. Tremblay, that there were no rules at Public Works. Did I mishear you? Did you say you were aware that the rules were not there?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I did not say that there were no rules. I said there were no rules requiring that an agreement be signed with the event organizer, that there be an appendix and that a report be produced. We are the ones who decided to do that. It was our initiative. I didn't say there were no rules, because there were. Look at the contracts: there were rules. There was no specific rule as regards those items. We decided to do that of our own volition.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: So verbal contracts were something that would happen quite regularly? You would get a call from Mr. Guité, and things were done over the phone in that fashion? Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Mr. MacKay, you are mistaken. A contract is not given verbally over the phone. Contracts have to be in writing, and they have to have a number. However…
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Never? It was never done that way?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, a contract is not given over the phone.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.
I want to go back to this issue involving Mario Parent. Mr. Parent, who was working at the Department of Public Works, who I understand was second to Mr. Guité in the Department of Public Works and involved in the sponsorship program throughout the 1990s--much of the time that you were doing business with communications--signed three very lucrative contracts with you, with your company, Gosselin Communications stratégiques, and those contracts totalled over $6 million. He also, during that same period, when he was at the Department of Public Works, approved a 50% increase in your hourly fee. The chair referred to this. The pay rate for your work went up from $135 an hour to $205 an hour. This all happened, I suggest, greatly to your benefit, and then Mr. Parent went to work for you.
Do you not see that it is optically very bad, that it smells very bad, that the public would be very, very suspicious about that kind of an arrangement? Do you see nothing problematic with that arrangement?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I understand why you would think patronage had been involved, but I can assure you that is not the case.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.
Are you having difficulty picking up my questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, but there is a lag between the end of your question and the end of the translation; that's all. I'm sorry if this is taking me a little more time, but I have to wait until the interpreter has finished speaking.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: But you're fluently bilingual, Mr. Gosselin? You speak perfect English, as I understand it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I speak a little English, but I certainly wouldn't say that I am fluently bilingual.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: That's fair enough.
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: If you want to appreciate my English....
Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to go back to questions about the Bluenose contract you had, which in total came out to about a $3 million contract, not all of which went to Gosselin, I understand, but there was a tractor-trailer truck that was used for transportation of the Bluenose. Do you know who has that truck now, who sold it, who signed the contract for it? Did that go through Gosselin?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: The tractor-trailer truck you are referring to is the Bluenose Museumobile. We carted it around with us throughout the Bluenose tour. I believe it was purchased by Kadoke Displays Ltd. of Toronto. I believe they were the owners of the tractor-trailer and I do know that the maintenance invoices were sent to us even after the Bluenose tour in the summer of 1997, because…
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: So all of those invoices would have been turned over at the time to the government? That would have been part of your obligation that you fulfilled, and you would have documented all of that and turned that over to the Department of Public Works, correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: Yes, that's correct. I submitted the detailed invoices I received from Kadoke Displays to the Government, some of which pertained to storage and maintenance of the tractor-trailer. I know that at one point, they had to change a hydraulic cylinder. That cost $7,000. I remember because I came across it completely by accident.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: So Gosselin never would have benefited from the sale of that truck in any way, shape, or form?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, no.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.
With respect to the Maurice Richard series, that is a specific question I have, as well as the work you did on the RCMP's 125th anniversary. In both cases, according to the Auditor General, the contract work you did really amounted to nothing more than passing money from the Government of Canada, Public Works, through your company to, in the case of the Maurice Richard series, VIA Rail, and in the case of the RCMP, the money went to the RCMP.
It seems, at least on paper, that your company received in excess of $141,000 with the RCMP and $156,000 in relation to the Maurice Richard series for basically taking a cheque from the government and delivering it to the source.
The Auditor General is quite explicit in drawing an example of this, and she puts a chart in her report. Yet I haven't heard anything, and I don't think Canadians have heard anything, in this entire inquiry that explains how a communications firm can reap that kind of reward for picking up and delivering a cheque.
Can you explain that in very simple terms so that I and others can understand where the value for money was, to use Mr. Mills' term? Where was the value added for that type of work?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I don't know where the Auditor General got the idea that we had passed on a cheque to the RCMP and pocketed money simply for transferring the funds. There was work that was performed with the RCMP. Indeed, last week, the RCMP Commissioner came forward and said that he had done an investigation on this very matter and that he was very satisfied with all the services that had been provided by the two firms, including Gosselin Strategic Communications. We did a lot of work in cooperation with them, including the job of coordinating the festivities. In fact, there are former RCMP employees who were paid by our firm, out of that same column of funding that was…
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Do you know anything about a contract that was given to Public Works more recently? This would be after this particular arrangement you had, involving the work done around the 1999 Francophonie games, where items like watches, putters, and golf shirts were purchased. This was, again, done through your son's company, and then those items were turned over to Public Works for distribution.
Do you recall anything of that nature, in particular, gold-plated putters? Does that ring a bell with you?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: I remember that promotional items were purchased by the organizing committee of the Francophone Games, as well as by the Secretariat, if I'm not mistaken. As to what those items were, I really don't know, but I do know that promotional materials were purchased.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: You never saw gold-plated putters as part of that promotion?
The Chair: Time is up, Mr. McKay.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-André Gosselin: No, I don't recall anything like that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I can't remember anything like that.
[English]
The Chair: We're going to ask you to withdraw, Mr. Gosselin. You may withdraw, and we thank you. We'll see you back at 3:30 this afternoon.
Members, don't run away, please. We have quorum at this point in time. For the members of the committee, I was just talking about this earlier. We are going to have the public accounts committee from Ireland visiting us next week, and as you know, we're tied up with meetings all day long, every day. Therefore, I have a motion that the committee host a working luncheon for members of the public accounts committee with the public accounts committee of Ireland during the week of May 3, 2004.
I need someone to move that.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I so move.
The Chair: Are members agreed?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We're planning at this point in time to have it at 1 o'clock on Wednesday, May 5. That will be some time next week.
The meeting is adjourned.