PACC Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

1535

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

1540

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

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

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

1545

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

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

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1550

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1555

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rob Walsh

1600

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard (As Individual)

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1605

1610

1615

1620

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1625

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1630

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

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

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1635

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

1640

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Joe Jordan

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1645

Hon. Joe Jordan

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1650

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1655

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1700

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1705

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

M. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1710

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1715

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

1720

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

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

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

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

1725

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mrs. Myriam Bédard

The Chair

1730

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 014

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), we are considering chapter 3, The Sponsorship Program, chapter 4, Advertising Activities, and chapter 5, Management of Public Opinion Research, ofthe November 2003 Report of the AuditorGeneral of Canada, referred to the committee on February 10, 2004. These are the orders of the day.

Our witness will be—and she'll be here in a few minutes—Ms. Myriam Bédard.

Before we get to that, I've had notices of some motions from Mr. Toews, and I have some housekeeping business to do as well. I will get to Mr. Toews' motions after I deal with the correspondence and so on.

First of all, yesterday we talked about tabling a report in the House about the peer review of the Auditor General. I have received a letter from Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, regarding some issues she had pertaining to our discussion; therefore, I am not going to table that report in the House today. I will have further discussions with the Auditor General and the committee, likely privately, before we move forward. That letter, I believe, has been circulated. I think everybody has it. It's self-explanatory.

That's that out of the way.

The second thing is that I have a letter from Mr. Jim Judd addressed to Mr. Bernard Fournier, the clerk of the standing committee. It deals with a number of issues.

It deals with the clarification of a reference he made regarding the 1996 audit. He mentions to the committee that:

there was no obligation at that time on the part of the department to share their audits. Nevertheless, I have been informed that the Treasury Board Review Policy, the policy that preceded the current Treasury Board Policy on Internal Audit, did make deputy heads accountable for providing the Treasury Board Secretariat with copies of reports of the audits and that Public Works and Government Services Canada provided

a summary and action plan to his predecessor's officials.

It goes on. It covers off a number of things. It deals with stacking—that came up. It also deals with Mr. Keddy's issue on the Canada Firearms Centre, and the approvals, and so on. There are a number of long documents. I'm not going to read them all, but that is a letter from Mr. Judd, Secretary of the Treasury Board.

I have also a letter from the office of Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis providing information regarding the Pan American Games Society. I would hope the information, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, is going to be picked up in the motions in which we have already requested information from Public Works. If not, then I would expect you'll be tabling a motion asking for that information.

In the same vein—I'll just deal with this right now—at question period today the Minister of Public Works, in response to a question by Mr. Casey, said perhaps he should take it up with the chair of the public accounts committee. That was dealing with Compass Communications and the grant to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. Again, if this documentation is not picked up in the motion, we will want all the information pertaining to it.

I also have the government's response to the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on classification and evaluation. That is now available for anybody who wants to read it.

¹ (1540)

I have a request for documentation from the commission of inquiry, which may be thinking about trying to get some work done soon. Here we have a letter from Mr. Neil Finkelstein,addressed to me as the chair of the public accounts committee. I'm not going to read the whole thing, except that:

Inasmuch as the substance of your Committee's work may overlap to a certain extent with the issues of the Commission's terms of reference, a copy of which is enclosed for convenience, please provide copies of all transcripts, documents and evidence from the Committee's work on these issues....

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I'll ask the clerk.... That's basically a notice of motion that will be up at the next meeting that we have a motion to give the judicial inquiry all the documentation and the transcripts of our meetings.

I also have “A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State”. You may recall that we asked for the version for 2002 earlier. They have advised us that this is the only public document, and those in private hands are basically the same as what we have. I would just like to read one little section on ministerial accountability and answerability. This is on page 3 of the document:

In providing good government for the people of Canada, ministers are responsible and accountable to Parliament for the use of those powers vested in them by statute. Ministers must be present in Parliament to respond to questions on the use of those powers, as well as to accept responsibility and account for that use. Whether a Minister has used the powers appropriately is a matter of political judgment by Parliament. The Prime Minister has the prerogative to evaluate the consequences and to reaffirm support for that Minister or to ask for his or her resignation.

Ministers are also required to answer to Parliament by providing information to Parliament on the use of powers by bodies that report to Parliament through them. In providing the information, Ministers must take into account all implications, including the lawful protection of privacy and the Minister's statutory authority over the organization. The Public Service supports Ministers by providing information that assists them in answering to Parliament.

I'll leave that with you.

An hon. member: Was that a random passage?

The Chair: It was just a random passage that I found on page 3.

I also have “Guidance for Deputy Ministers”. These documents are all tabled and now available.

For your information, there were three notices of motion received yesterday, and they'll be brought forward tomorrow after the 48-hour rule.

A reminder to everybody--I'm not sure that we've had anything: remember that we want feedback on the draft report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as to how much time we are going to set aside for that.

We're going to go to Mr. Toews, but do you have a point of order, Mrs. Ablonczy?

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect to this new document before us, “A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State”, on page 1 it says “The Ministry includes Ministers, Ministers of State and Secretaries of State...”.

On page 3, you just talked about ministerial accountability and answerability, so I'd like someone to explain to me why the secretary of state, who is answerable to Parliament, is sitting over there investigating himself.

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thanks for the promotion, but I'm the parliamentary secretary.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Look at the document.

Hon. Joe Jordan: I'm parliamentary secretary, but I'll take the promotion.

The Chair: Excellent point.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, it's a member of the Privy Council.

The Chair: I'm going to take that point under advisement, Ms. Ablonczy, because I'm not exactly sure how I should deal with it. I think it's an important point, but I can't give you a ruling just at the moment. Is that okay?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I accept that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: I will discuss it with the law clerk and the other clerks and get back to you.

Mr. Toews, you said you had some motions.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In yesterday's budget, Finance Minister Goodale announced that the government was “terminating the sponsorship program and the national unity reserve”. Yesterday a motion from one of my colleagues calling for all documents related to that fund was defeated by the Liberal majority on this committee.

Mr. Chair, I'm concerned about this state of affairs. No accounting has been provided on how this money from this secret fund was appropriated, how it was authorized, or indeed how it was spent. There was no mention of this fund in either main estimates or supplementary estimates, or in the public accounts of Canada.

I think it's of interest to this committee and for all Canadians to get to the bottom of this matter. Therefore, I'd like to give notice of the following motion. If I have unanimous consent, I would certainly appreciate that. Hopefully the Liberal members will provide me with unanimous consent.

The motion is that the government provide to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts the names of recipients and all documentation, including authorizations, pertaining to the funds spent on the national unity fund from 1996 until 2004.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Are there cameras in here? The media are allowed in here, but the cameras are not allowed. Okay, the cameras are out.

Thank you, Ms. Phinney. I was not aware that there were cameras in here. Perhaps security could keep the door closed, please.

Sorry, could you read that motion again, Mr. Toews?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, I would like to. As I indicated, I would like unanimous consent on this motion, because I think it's very straightforward. Basically, in dealing with this secret fund that we've now learned about....

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Vic Toews: Well, what I mean is.... There was an intervention there. Mr. Mills was asking me what kind of secret fund.

I'm talking about the secret fund that was not mentioned in the main or supplementary estimates or the public accounts of Canada, this national unity reserve fund--that secret fund. Hopefully that clarifies which secret fund we're talking about.

So the motion, Mr. Chair--

The Chair: Mr. Mills, please, we have a motion. We have work to do.

Mr. Vic Toews: The motion is that the government provide to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts the names of recipients and all documentation, including authorizations, pertaining to funds spent on the national unity fund from 1996 to 2004.

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Toews.

Is there unanimous consent that we deal with the motion now?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: No, there is no unanimous consent.

Mr. Vic Toews: On a point of order, I didn't see who opposed that.

The Chair: Are you asking for a recorded vote?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, I am.

The Chair: Do we need a recorded vote for unanimous consent? We don't have a recorded vote for unanimous consent. There was no unanimous consent.

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Chair, if I may impose, I understand the willingness of the member to bring that motion forward today. I think you might get unanimous consent if there were unanimous consent to bring forward all of the motions that are now before the committee to deal with.

I have a motion that was tabled with the clerk.

The Chair: Okay. We do have the motions that are current now. How many motions do you have, Mr. Toews?

Mr. Vic Toews: I have one more.

The Chair: How many do you have, Mr. MacKay?

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): I have two.

The Chair: You have two.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm not aware that the other motions were actually tabled with the clerk. If they were not, then I would suggest we deal with the motion tabled with the clerk first, if there's unanimous consent to deal with motions today, and then we'll go with the others.

The Chair: There is no unanimous consent.

So, Mr. Toews, you have another notice of motion.

Mr. Vic Toews: I have one final motion, and it relates to housekeeping as well as to the substance of the hearings.

Mr. Chair, we have two break weeks, the first beginning April 5 and the other the week of April 12. Now, I understand that members are prepared to sit at least the first of those break weeks, and I certainly would approve of that. I would suggest, however, that during the week of April 12 to April 16, following those hearings of the week of April 5, we have the prior week's hearings as well as all of the relevant evidence prepared by the clerks, that they prepare a submission during that second break week summarizing the testimony of witnesses regarding the investigations.

As an opposition member, I have limited access to the resources that some of the parliamentary secretaries may have in terms of being able to summarize. I think it would be very helpful if during that second break week we have that assistance in order to ensure we can proceed in the following weeks in an organized fashion.

What I'm doing, then, is bringing notice of another motion, Mr. Chair, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts request that the clerks, the law clerk, library researchers, and all other staff supporting the committee prepare a submission during the week of April 12 to 16, 2004, that summarizes all testimony and witnesses heard by this committee regarding the committee's investigation into the sponsorship matter. That would then allow us to proceed in an expeditious fashion the following week.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

Mrs. Jennings, I have your motion here, and I'm--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, I'd like to explain it, given that the others have--

The Chair: No, I'm going to just read Mrs. Jennings' motion, because Mr. Toews would want to know about it.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, and I think possibly Mr. Toews and I can sit down and see if we can work out a compromise.

The Chair: Let me read your motion, which we received notice of:

That this committee, in addition to its meetings scheduled for April 5, 6, and 7, 2004, meet three days during the week of April 12, 2004, for the sole purpose of hearing from witnesses in the matters pertaining to 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.

There is some divergence and potential commonality. This is a notice of motion to be discussed tomorrow. Mr. Toews, if you could talk to Ms. Jennings, and Ms. Jennings, if you could talk to Mr. Toews, that would be good.

Ms. Phinney, is this a point of order? I was going to Mr. MacKay's motion, then I'll come to you.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I have no idea what a point of order is in this committee. It seems to be totally different from those in every other committee I've sat on.

The Chair: If it's a point of order, you get recognized.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I just want to ask why we have rules for this committee, and then, with every single thing that comes up, we say, oh, this is special, so we'll break the rule. We have a 48-hour rule; why don't we follow it?

The Chair: We are following the 48-hour rule.

Ms. Beth Phinney: We're just asking if you have unanimous consent to have these things--

The Chair: That happens in the House of Commons all the time, it's a standard way; anybody can deny unanimous consent, and that's it.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chair, that's fine as long as that's the spirit, and when it comes up in the House the next day that we said no to something because it didn't have 24 hours' notice, we didn't give consent, it's not brought up as a political matter.

The Chair: I agree with you, Ms. Phinney. How the motion is decided upon when it's debated is more the decision.

Mr. MacKay, you said you had a motion.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I give notice of two motions. I'm prepared to read them, or would you prefer I just table them? They're very short.

The Chair: Read them if they're very short. There'll be no debate.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The first is that this committee request that the government provide the curricula vitae for Ministers of Public Works from 1993 to 2004.

The second is that this committee request that the government provide all correspondence received by any minister, public servant, or departmental official for Groupe Everest, Groupaction, Lafleur Communications, or any subsidiary that may exist or have existed under a different name or registered entity, without exception.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan: The information we're asking here to be provided to the committee, does it go to Mr. Walsh for filtering, or are we just asking for it to be given to us in an envelope like this?

The Chair: Quite honestly, Mr. Jordan, I was otherwise engaged when the motion was being read, but there was no mention of its being filtered.

¹ (1555)

Hon. Joe Jordan: What was the second motion?

The Chair: That the committee request from the government that it provide all correspondence received by ministers from Groupe Everest, Groupaction, and any subsidiary.... Again, there's no filtering in the motion. That will be available in the two official languages.

Mr. Kenney, is this a motion?

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): I have two brief motions of which I'd like to give notice. The first is that this committee request that the government provide the mandate of the former ad hoc committee of cabinet on government communications--

The Chair: Mr. Kenney, if I may interrupt, the clerk has just advised me that you are not actually signed in at this moment in time as a member of the committee. Mrs. Ablonczy is going to read the motions.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chair, I'd like to table a motion that this committee request that the government table all minutes or documents pertaining to the ad hoc committee of cabinet on communications, without exception.

The second motion is that this committee request that the government provide the mandate of the former ad hoc committee of cabinet on government communications.

The Chair: Thank you. That will be translated and distributed, and the 48-hour rule will apply.

The law clerk wanted to say something on the request by the commission for documents. I presumed it was just a matter of course, but he has something he would like to say.

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the request you're referring to, but I would counsel the committee against providing to that commission any transcripts of its proceedings. In my view, these proceedings are privileged and the testimony provided in these proceedings is not available for any other proceedings or to be used in any other proceedings. This, in fact, is the representation made to witnesses about parliamentary privilege, that their testimony is not going to be used elsewhere for any purposes. It would appear that if the committee were to volunteer these documents to the commission, they would be, as it were, complicit in assisting in the use of records of these proceedings in other proceedings. I appreciate that these documents are public documents, and it may well be that parties such as this commission may have access to these documents, but in my view, they do so at their risk, because they ought not to be using testimony of this committee in their proceedings.

The Chair: I'm not going to get into a debate other than to say that I believe the order of the Privy Council did allow for the documents to be distributed, but we will have that debate when we deal with it.

Is this regarding something else, Mr. Jordan?

Hon. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I just want to make a small point.

Yesterday I think we dealt with seven motions. We didn't approve two of them, and everybody knows the rest of that story. One of the things I'm concerned about and one of the reasons I didn't vote for one of those motions is that I felt there was considerable overlap with other motions. From now on, I'm approving all their motions--if you want the toilet paper, I'll give you that paper.

We're going to have to provide more resources for the people who have to filter some of this stuff, but I'm just wondering if the clerk, when he gets all these motions, can keep track, because it sounds to me as if some of the motions proposed today we've already done. I may be wrong, but I think if we can bring some order to it, you can have whatever you want. Clearly, yesterday we were concerned because there were five motions and there was overlap.

You win; I lose. I'm not making that mistake again.

The Chair: You're absolutely right, Mr. Jordan, and that was one of the directions we gave to the forensic auditors, that they keep track of these things. I think that was the motivation behind Mr. Toews' motion that they take the time to collate everything and present it to us. Therefore, when people do want to make motions, we will ask that they do check them with the forensic auditor before they bring them here so that we're not dealing with the same thing over and over again.

But it does require that we bring some semblance of order to our deliberations and investigation. We're trying to get up to speed as fast as we possibly can. We have some resources on tap now, and these are the types of things we want to move forward on.

Without further ado, ladies and gentlemen--

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here on this matter from counsel for the commission. I would be pleased to discuss this matter with that counsel further, but it is my view that the documents they're asking for ought not to be provided to them.

º (1600)

The Chair: I may delay bringing that motion forward until I have some serious discussions. It's not time sensitive, so that may not be up in 48 hours.

Let's bring our witness forward. We'd like to bring in Mrs. Myriam Bédard.

Welcome, Mrs. Bédard. I understand you are accompanied by your partner. You may want to introduce him.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard (As Individual): This is my partner, Nima Mazhari.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

You have been called here as a witness, and the questions will be addressed only to you, not to your partner. The conversation with the committee will be with you and you alone.

Again, I would like to welcome you to this committee. We appreciate your coming forward to speak of issues that you know about pertaining to chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report that we are currently dealing with before the committee.

I have a note that I read to all witnesses. This is not directed to you or anybody specifically, but it states that the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury.

That is from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit, page 862. As I said, it is not directed at you specifically. I read it for all witnesses.

You have an opening statement to make, I believe, Mrs. Bédard.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

The Chair: I will now turn the floor over to you to read your opening statement.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Thank you.

Should we give copies to everyone?

The Chair: We will get someone to make the distribution.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Okay.

The first couple of minutes are not in this statement, but after that it will be included.

[Translation]

Good morning, everyone.

When I was a girl of 13, I joined the army cadets in Valcartier. A year later, in December 1984, following a number of selections, the 2772th Cadet Corps biathlon team, which included one girl, was selected. In his speech, our coach told us: “I hope one day one of you will win international honours for our country and, you never know, perhaps an Olympic gold medal. It's okay to dream about it.” I was only 14 years old and I was inspired by our coach's hope. His voice is still in my head even today. From that day forward, in my adolescent naivete and purity, I wanted to be the one who would win all the honours for her country, and I was like that until the age of 30, when I retired from sports. All my energy, all my desire and all my courage were focused on achieving perfection, so that I would become the best in the world. The few sponsors that were invaluable to me in carrying on my career encouraged me in that direction. At CN, my public affairs training over five years showed me that they too were trying to be the best in all fields.

After I retired from sports, in the same spirit of performance, I arrived at VIA Rail Canada in January 2001 to take up the position of national programs specialist. After working for a few weeks, I began to see that files could be handled in a more efficient and less costly way. I shared my concerns with my co-worker at the time, Pascale Villeneuve, whom I was soon to replace. Today, I can imagine to what extent I wasn't the right person to replace her. Shortly afterward, the right person, Laurence LeFrançois, obtained the position of national programs specialist.

After working on a few files, including the Francophone Games, with a sponsorship of $400,000, I handled all aspects of a project that cost VIA Rail Canada nothing. Once again, I spoke with my co-worker Laurence LeFrançois about the possibility of having the work done more cheaply by other advertising agencies, and especially involving new ideas. She told me that we still had to go through Groupaction and Lafleur. A few weeks later, I was transferred to Groupaction and subsequently laid off. Marc LeFrançois fired me with a simple telephone call. I was insulted and psychologically paralyzed.

Shortly afterwards, I went to the Salt Lake City Olympic Games and, when I got back, I learned that VIA Rail had cut up projects that Nima Mazhari was doing into little bits. VIA Rail wasn't paying the bills and Nima Mazhari wanted to take measures so that his bills would be paid. But, in view of the things I had seen and heard, I was traumatized and very afraid. So I asked him at the time to do nothing.

A few days ago, I saw Jean Chrétien on television. He had a big smile and was very proud to say that he was pleased with his decision, last year, to refuse to take part in the war in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, Canada didn't get involved in the war because Nima Mazhari gave the Prime Minister a little advice. Last year, I asked Nima, since I had been fired and his bills hadn't been paid, why he had to help the government with regard to the war. He told me it was true that I had been fired and that his bills hadn't been paid, but that that was not a problem and that we were responsible for contributing to our country's welfare and living by our principles. Today, across Canada, we are pleased and proud that we didn't take part in the war. Based on those same principles and in a concern for my country's welfare, I decided to recall today details that could have stayed on my desk in Montreal. Achieving perfection at a high level means respecting our values and integrity.

I now come to the document I distributed to you earlier.

In 1995, I met Groupaction concerning an Oasis juice TV ad. In 1996, I heard that Jean Brault liked car races and that he was financing Bertrand Godin on the European Formula 3000 circuit.

º (1605)

In 1996, I met the RCMP in Quebec City with Odilon Emond and Pierre Droz, who asked me to be the honorary president of the RCMP golf tournament for child diseases research. In September 1997, I didn't take part in the golf tournament because I was ill.

In September 1997, when I was in Austria, I received a telephone call from Jean-Marc St-Pierre in Montreal, who asked me whether I had an idea for a TV commercial on Canadian unity. Someone from the Groupaction agency called me in Austria to give him the scenario.

On October 25, 1997, a screen test was filmed in Montreal entitled Toi, Jane - Moi et Maude.

In November 1997, I learned that the commercial had caused a lot of emotion in Ottawa and that the project had been approved. It was called “Nagano TV Ad”.

In February 1998, the Nagano campaign started. My commercial was a great success and was broadcast throughout the year.

In Montreal in May 1998, I met Odilon Emond and Jean-Marc St-Pierre at RCMP headquarters to find ways to finance the MIMI project, for which Jean-Marc told me my fees would be $150,000.

On September 8, 1998, the twelfth edition of the RCMP golf tournament was held. Odilon Emond, Marc LeFrançois and Jean Carle were part of my foursome. On that same date, Marc LeFrançois told me that, if I was looking for work, I could go and work for VIA Rail Canada.

In June 1997 or 1998, at the Montreal Grand Prix, Jean-Marc St-Pierre told me in Normand Legault's box that Jacques Villeneuve was being paid US$12 million to wear the word “Canada” on his racing suit and that that was top secret.

In March or April 1999, I met with Mr. Gagliano here in Ottawa together with Jean Brault of Groupaction and Jean-Marc St-Pierre to present the MIMI project so that it could be introduced in elementary schools in Quebec. Jean Brault assured the minister that I would be paid for the project. In the documents I glimpsed at that time, the budget was $4 million for a $500,000 production. Minister Gagliano told me that the Nagano commercial had been a major success and that the government had received requests for it to continue longer, which was done.

On March 6, 1999, I received a blue Mercedes SLK 230 in Quebec City at the last Biathlon World Cup event in Valcartier. My sponsors wanted to give me a present for the last race of my career. My sponsors were: Chatel Automobiles Ltée since 1990, Vidéotron since 1992 and Oasis juices, through Groupaction, since 1995. The car was insured by BELAIRdirect for two years.

From 1994 to 1998, the Canadian government, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, made a number of advertising posters using my picture, without me being paid.

On March 1, 2001, I met Jean Pelletier and Jean-Marc St-Pierre in Ottawa to present the MIMI project for project approval.

On March 1, 2000, I met Alain Guilbert of Canada Post and Jean-Marc St-Pierre in Ottawa to present the MIMI project and the Nicolas Fontaine sponsorship.

On July 12, 2000, I met with Paul Tellier, President of CN, in Montreal to present the MIMI project, together with officials, and I left the documents with him. He was ultimately not interested in the project.

On September 12, 2000, the United Way campaign was launched in Ottawa. I launched the campaign in front of government employees, at Pierre Tremblay's request. I subsequently presented the MIMI project to Pierre Tremblay in the presence of Jean-Marc St-Pierre at the luncheon.

In September 2000, the RCMP golf tournament was held in the presence of the new commander, Pierre Lange. I learned on that occasion that there had been problems with the management of the money collected the previous year and that receipts that year were in the order of $50,000, compared to $150,000 in the past. I noticed a change of behaviour toward me by the RCMP.

º (1610)

On August 13, 2001, I took part in the RCMP golf tournament for the last time. I decided at the time that, from that point on, I wouldn't volunteer any more time or energy to a cause whose managers I didn't think were honest.

In October 2000, I met Marc LeFrançois to discuss a future marketing job with VIA Rail Canada. We agreed at the time that I would start on January 10, 2001. That job wasn't a sponsorship, since I would be a VIA Rail Canada employee.

On December 14, 2000, I was invited to the VIA Rail Canada Christmas party, where I met Laurence LeFrançois, the daughter of Marc LeFrançois, who worked for VIA Rail in Montreal, and Nancy LeFrançois, Marc LeFrançois' niece, who worked for VIA Rail Canada in Quebec City.

On January 10, 2001, I started working at VIA Rail Canada. Pascale Villeneuve was responsible for familiarizing me with my work since I was to replace her shortly afterward.

In January 2001, Groupaction bought Lafleur Communications. That same month, I handled my first project, Winterlude in Ottawa. I studied the invoices in that file and discussed my concerns about excessive costs with Pascale Villeneuve. The agency responsible for that project was Gosselin Communications in Ottawa.

In February 2001, I finalized details of the Winterlude project since everyone was in Spain.

That same month, Pascale told me that we would be very busy in Ottawa on Friday, because we had to buy wine, flowers and all kinds of treats for the suite of Christina Keon-Sirsly and the president.

Again that same month, Pascale announced to me that we would have nothing to do in Ottawa since Christina and the others wouldn't be coming. At that point, I understood that Pascale was the wife of vice-president Paul Côté. Our hotel rooms were not on the same floor and were not the same size.

In February 2001, I returned to Montreal on a Friday by bus to take the train to Carnaval in Quebec City which was leaving very early on Saturday. That was another event sponsored by VIA Rail Canada in Quebec City.

In March 2001, I met the people responsible for the Francophone Games which would be held in Ottawa. Attending that meeting were Christina Keon-Sirsly, Laurence LeFrançois, Marc Deschênes and myself. We talked about the possibility of sponsoring beach volleyball and of having a box at the games for $400,000. We were responsible for organizing the Grand Train de la Francophonie.

That same month, I went to the Graphithèque to work on advertisements with a technician, but the invoices went through Groupaction. I was told that everything went through Groupaction.

Again that same month, I met with my co-workers to develop a plan for children travelling free of charge in the summer. The project was to cost VIA Rail nothing, and I was told that 20,000 children travel on trains in the summer. I thought it was quite weird that there was no annual marketing plan or statistics to guide us in developing our advertising strategies.

On April 6, 2001, I had collected enough funds from various sponsorships to carry out the project in full without VIA Rail spending a single dollar. I had enough money to make 27,000 copies.

On April 7, 2001, I was told at Datamark Systems that the printing of 150,000 copies of cardboard trains was complete. The order had been approved by VIA Rail on March 8, 2001. In March 2000, they had printed 181,000 copies.

On April 7, 2001, I presented my project to Marc LeFrançois and told him about my concerns over the number of copies. I was about to have 27,000 copies printed, but the number of cardboard trains distributed on board the trains every year was in the range of 150,000 to 180,000. That same day, he told me that I had to have 100,000 copies printed. I called Pierre Tremblay, checked to see whether he knew me and asked him to help me carry out my project.

On April 8, I met Pierre Tremblay in Ottawa to present my project to him. He liked me and asked me to meet Claude Boulay, who worked for Groupe Everest, to work on the project with Attractions Canada.

In May 2001, the final copy of my project was approved by Diane Langevin of VIA Rail Canada. It was the end of the project, and the distribution began.

Over the first three weeks in June 2001, 20,000 copies were distributed.

In July 2001, we had very little time, and the advertising for the passports was terrible. I asked Laurence LeFrançois if I could have our advertising done elsewhere. The next day, I presented her with a new concept done by another firm, and Laurence told me that everything had to go through Groupaction, even if we weren't satisfied, even if we didn't have the time or even if it was too expensive.

º (1615)

In August 2001, I met Michel Tremblay of CKAC in Montreal to present advertising spots that I could do for radio during the Salt Lake City Olympic Games in February 2002. He asked me to wait a bit because he was working on a similar project with Denis Coderre, Public Works and Coffin Communications, and he was expecting an answer shortly.

In August 2001, Marc LeFrançois asked me whether I wanted to do television advertising for VIA Rail Canada. I said I would, but the only condition was that the rules of the Union des artistes be complied with, because I'm a member of the Union des artistes.

In August 2001, Marc LeFrançois and Steve Del Bosco asked me to do VIA Rail's television advertising. Once again, I asked that the rules of the Union des artistes be complied with. Marc LeFrançois then shouted at Steve Del Bosco that, if he gave me money for that, he would slip it through the keyhole.

In September 2001, Groupaction sent an estimate to Mr. LeFrançois saying that the advertisement production would cost $150,000, plus taxes, if it complied with the regulations of the Union des artistes.

In September 2001, I was replaced by Judge Ruffo, and Serge Savard was replaced by Steve Charbonneau for the TV ad.

In September 2001, Marc LeFrançois and Jean Pelletier encouraged me to open my own advertising company to do VIA Rail Canada's projects.

In September 2001, Jean Pelletier asked me to prepare an advertising plan for children travelling on trains.

On October 10, 2001, the VIA Rail marketing group met in my absence and decided to terminate the children's program. The reason was that there had been a drop in the number of passengers during the summer. I responded, when I got back, saying that that was impossible and that I was going to count the tickets one by one, if necessary. Ten days later, the real statistics came out: there had been a 17.9 percent increase during the summer.

On October 26, 2001, I presented my plan to Jean Pelletier, who sent me to Marc LeFrançois.

On November 3, 2001, I was sent to Groupaction, and, on January 11, 2002, at eight o'clock in the morning, Marc LeFrançois, at Jean Pelletier's request, told me by telephone that I had to leave VIA Rail, or else Jean Pelletier would transfer me to Groupaction. I was extremely insulted; I didn't understand anything. That request was a shock for me. I had previously heard Mr. LeFrançois say that Groupaction was involved in drug trafficking. I was afraid and psychologically paralyzed.

In February 2002, in Salt Lake City, I asked my friend Marcel Aubut for his opinion, and I asked him whether it was possible to inquire into the reasons why Jean Pelletier had fired me and why VIA Rail was in such a hurry to push me out the door before the Olympic Games.

In May 2002, VIA Rail did not pay Nima Mazhari's invoices. He wanted to take measures for those invoices to be paid, but he was too scared, and I convinced him to let the matter drop.

That's all.

º (1620)

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Madame Bédard. We appreciate it.

I have two questions. On page 2 of your report, is it a typographical mistake when the third number from the bottom is 2001? Should it be 2000?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No, it is 2001, because I wanted to make a follow-up with the RCMP.

The Chair: I just wanted to confirm that it was not a typographical mistake. We thank you for that.

Another question I will ask all the witnesses is whether you have had any discussion with anybody in government, formerly in government, or around government regarding your statements. Have you come here willingly and presented your own statement, or have you been given direction by anybody associated with or formerly associated with government?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I prepared my statement by myself. I looked through all my schedules. It is from my head.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Because we are in a two-hour slot and we have a full complement of people here, I think we must return to our four-minute schedule. Or do you want to go with eight? Is that appropriate? We will then have eight in the first round, followed by four minutes.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you very much, Ms. Bédard, for coming forward. I think Canadians who are listening to you feel that for the first time they are getting perhaps an inside look into how this sponsorship program operated. Really, it's the first time we've had someone give us an example of how this was handled. So that's been very helpful. I want to thank you for your contribution to the honour of our country in the past, and today you are making a further contribution to the honour of our country by helping us to get to the bottom of a series of incidents that have really blackened the reputation of Canada. It's something we want to investigate. We appreciate that you're a world-class straight shooter. We look forward to getting a little more information about the events you have just described to us.

I would first ask you whether you have any documentation you could provide to the committee with respect to the events you've outlined for us today.

º (1625)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I brought with me a couple of publicity items I made.

[Translation]

When I mentioned that I went to Graphithèque, I took a few ads that I and the technician had prepared at the time, but the invoices nevertheless went through Groupaction. I have a few ads here that I had done outside, at other firms, but I was told to drop everything, that everything had to go through Groupaction. I don't have a lot of examples, but these are originals that I kept since no one wanted to use them.

When I mentioned the project I did for VIA Rail for free, with sponsorships, I was referring to the project that was done at VIA Rail, with the cooperation of Attractions Canada, Canada Post and a number of other sponsors as well. So this is the final project that resulted from all the procedures I described and the visits I made to people for the purpose. It was distributed and there were roughly 100,000 copies on board the trains.

There is also the MIMI videocassette, which was prepared as part of the MIMI project, for which I had to meet Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Tremblay; this is the video currently being sold in all the stores. It's on sale at all the drug stores right now. MIMI was my name. The character was based on me, since she's an athletic girl, who, throughout the video, tries to protect her friends from dangers and violence that can occur at school. So I have a photocopy here; I didn't bring the cassette, but I have a photocopy of the video, back and front.

I also talked about the advertising file I had prepared at Graphithèque; I have it here, back and front, as well as an ad that I prepared on my computer, because we weren't allowed to have Fotoshop, a piece of graphics software, at VIA Rail. I had it on my personal computer and I did this on my own computer.

In addition, we were often told that Groupaction was there to protect VIA Rail's logo, its trademark, and so on, but all the projects were ultimately always approved at VIA Rail by Diane Langevin. She had the authority to grant or refuse permission to print all documents. Here I have a copy of a file that she approved for me at the time because she ultimately had full responsibility for projects.

As for statistics, I told you they wanted to cut the children's program at VIA Rail since there had been a decline. I have the first news release saying that there had been a drop of 500 children over the summer. The real statistics were subsequently released at the time I spoke out. I also have the papers showing the difference between those statistics.

When I mentioned the Mercedes SLK that I received from the sponsors at the time, that was published more or less everywhere. So here I have the magazine that shows that I received the Mercedes in the presence of the sponsors. I also have letters of congratulations from my employers, who say I was a good employee up until a few days before I was laid off.

[English]

The Chair: We are under severe time limitations. Each member only has eight minutes. I will ask you to provide these documents to the clerk, who will photocopy them and have them distributed to all members and returned to you. But we would ask you to be quite brief, if possible, with your responses, because the members only have a limited time as well.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Okay, as you wish.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mrs. Bédard. We appreciate the documents you have with you. We will examine them with great care and interest.

Is it your evidence, then, that personnel at VIA Rail were not entirely honest with you with respect to some of the facts they gave you and in some of their dealings with you?

º (1630)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It is difficult to say whether they were fair or not fair, because I was always working on goodwill, and my first objective at VIA Rail was to have as many passengers as it was possible to have.

[Translation]

I'm going to continue in French.

My purpose at VIA Rail was to get more passengers on board the trains because that's what brings in revenue, and, if a company doesn't have revenue, it isn't profitable. That was my experience at CN and...

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

If I can just interrupt for a moment, I understand you were told that the ridership had not risen, but actually the figures showed that it did go up. Is that correct?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You met with Alfonso Gagliano at one point about one of the projects. Can you tell us what kind of input he had in the project during that conversation?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: During the meeting with Minister Gagliano, I remember mainly talking about the TV ad I had just completed, “Nagano TV Ad”. I remember it was mainly Jean Brault of Groupaction and Minister Gagliano, who was seated on my right, who discussed the project together. They had a document, a little blue book, that I didn't have. When I nevertheless got a bit of a look at the figures by turning the pages, but there were only a few pages, Minister Gagliano asked whether there was something in there for me. Jean Brault then reassured him, by pointing to a figure and saying that, yes, there was something for me in there, but I can't tell you what the figure he pointed to was, what the amount was; I didn't have the document in my hands. It was mainly Jean Brault of Groupaction and Minister Gagliano who did the talking.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The minister had a direct discussion with the representative from Groupaction. Did they appear to be well acquainted? Did you get the impression that they talked often? Do you have any knowledge of what kind of relationship they may have had?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard for me to say what kind of relationship they had. The minister was very nice with me, but it was more difficult to see what relationship there might have been between them. I can't judge their relationship, except that the minister was good with everyone.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Madame Ablonczy. My apologies, but eight minutes does go fast.

Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Bédard, first, thank you for appearing before us today.

I would like to come back to the meeting you had with Mr. Gagliano. Who had summoned you?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't know. It was at a meeting with Jean-Marc St-Pierre and Groupaction. It was mainly Jean-Marc St-Pierre who told me: “We're presenting the MIMI project and we're going to meet with Minister Gagliano.” I have to tell you that I didn't know him before the meeting.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Where was that meeting held?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: In Ottawa. I think it was in Parliament, or at his office, but I had to go through the security check; I remember going through the security check in order to go to the meeting.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: What was the purpose of that meeting? Did Mr. Gagliano seem to have some decision-making power? Were all the dice loaded? What was your actual role?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: During my career, my role was often to accompany people here and there to sell projects. They often used my image, my personality. I was taken to certain places to sell projects, but, for that project, for the first time, I had to be compensated for all the work that I did, since I had retired from sports. I was becoming an active professional person at the time. The purpose was to go sell the MIMI project, the CD-Rom, which was to be introduced in the schools in Quebec because the federal government was trying to get into the schools in Quebec.

º (1635)

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Bédard, in your opinion, did Mr. Gagliano make a decision at the time you met him?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard to say. I can't say whether he made a decision. He saw the project and we left.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did he tell you, before you left, that it was all right, or did you leave wanting more?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Personally, I didn't think that it was all right or not all right; I didn't think he had made a decision. At one point, I had to continue selling the project. Mr. Gagliano was one of the people I met. I also met people from Canada Post, from CN. I met a number of people. So I didn't see that he was more important than anyone else at that point.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: If, as you say, Mr. Gagliano looked at the contract and asked whether there was something for you, did he get involved in the decision, in the contract figures, at that point?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't know. Everything was written, so...

Mr. Odina Desrochers: What I want to know is this. When you say that you glimpsed the contract and that he asked whether a fee was provided for you, did he get directly involved in the document at that point, or did he consult Mr. Brault?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He consulted Mr. Brault, he asked him a question.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: What did Mr. Brault answer?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He pointed with his finger.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: And what did Mr. Gagliano say then, after Mr. Brault had pointed to the amount?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He said nothing; he looked at me.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did he nod his head to show that he agreed with Mr. Brault's decision?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't know whether it was a decision, or how it could be interpreted, but he pointed with his finger, he looked at me and he did that.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand. You say Mr. Gagliano didn't make a decision, but that he spoke to Mr. Brault and that the latter indicated an amount to him. In view of the fact that he had the contract before him, did he make a meaningful gesture to show that he agreed on the project?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I can't tell you; I couldn't judge that.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Now I'd like to come back to the meeting you had with Mr. Pelletier. What were Mr. Pelletier's duties at that point?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He was the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Where was that meeting held?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: In Ottawa, at his office. I think it was his office because all his assistants were there. I remember being photographed with all of Mr. Pelletier's assistants.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did you know Mr. Pelletier?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I didn't know him before the meeting. I knew him because he had previously been the mayor of Quebec City, but I didn't know him personally.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Who had invited you to meet Mr. Pelletier?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Jean-Marc St-Pierre made the appointment; I didn't make the appointment.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'll ask you a question for the benefit of the people here. You've mentioned Jean-Marc St-Pierre a number of times. Who is he?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Jean-Marc St-Pierre was my agent at the time. He was my agent from 1993 to roughly 2000.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did he have privileged relations with Groupaction or other companies such as Groupe Everest? Did he act as an intermediary?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I can't tell you what role he played. He was my agent and he often called me to go to various places. At that time, I didn't realize, I didn't see whether he was more friendly with those people than with other people I might have met.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: How did Mr. St-Pierre explain to you why that meeting took place? Did he explain to you why you had been summoned to Mr. Pelletier's office?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He told me that it was for the MIMI project, once again, and that there were a number of stages to go through, and that this was another stage we had to do.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: When he read the MIMI report, did Mr. Pelletier seem to approve? Did he say he agreed?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I found it a bit weird at that point because we had no documents; we had nothing. We went to meet Mr. Pelletier and talk to him about the project; we told him that it would be intended for Quebec schools, to prevent violence, and that MIMI was a character based on me, and so on, but we had no documents, no figures; we had nothing.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Following that meeting, did Mr. Pelletier show that he agreed on the discussions that you had had, or did he tell the people present to continue working with you? Was there consent? Did he say he agreed?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't remember seeing consent or anything. The meeting ended, we got up, he showed me his frog collection—he had about 100 frogs—and we left. So that's all I can tell you. I saw no consent or anything at that point.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: When you spoke to Mr. St-Pierre, did you ask him why he had had you meet...?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand. Pardon me. That's a situation I didn't expect. We'll come back to the subject, Mrs. Bédard, with your permission.

When you went back with Mr. St-Pierre, did you ask him what you had done, why you had met Jean Pelletier? Was there a follow-up to that? Were you satisfied with that meeting?

º (1640)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard for me to explain whether I was satisfied or not because I wasn't aware of a lot of things. I was taken here and there, I was the person who would be the spokesperson for the video, I was the image, I was the person they used. I was often not the person who made the appointments. I don't know how much time it took to get an appointment; I wasn't aware of the details. So it's hard for me to judge whether or not we were satisfied coming out of the meeting.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Bédard, the headline that started this whole thing and as a result of which you are here today is the one that appeared in La Presse and that stated, in reference to the sponsorship scandal: “Myriam Bédard says she was a victim of the scandal.” Briefly explain to us why.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's...

Mr. Odina Desrochers: You reported things. You no doubt read the newspapers. Can you say again today that you're still a victim of the sponsorship scandal?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: When I was fired from VIA Rail, I obviously didn't understand at all what was happening. I was of course an employee who asked a lot of questions, but I thought it was normal to try to make a company profitable. I thought that was within the norm. So I never thought that that could be a problem. It was more when the sponsorship scandal broke, in March, that I understood that I had met all those people, that I had ties to the MIMI project, that I ties with VIA Rail and that I was involved in all that: Groupaction, Jean Pelletier, Gagliano, Pierre Tremblay. If you name them all, I knew them all. I also worked with Groupe Everest. So it was clear to me that I was a resource person that journalists could call on at any time and try to get information.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much, Mrs. Bédard.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan. I understand you're splitting your time with Madam Jennings.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madame Bédard. I want to first congratulate you. We live daily with this sponsorship thing, and we sent out a clarion call for people to come forward, and we've subsequently put in safeguards on whistle-blowers. You predated all that; you came out on your own very early in this, and you've paid a personal price for that, which is extremely unfortunate. So I want to congratulate you for your courage.

I want to compliment you also on your document with regard to the chronological order of events. It took me three weeks to get our clerks to adopt a similar style in some of the stuff they were doing. It is fairly complicated, and I'll say one thing. At some point I'll have to go through it and list all these names, and I may need to come back, through the committee, to you to identify who these people are and their positions. It's clear to you when you're typing it who they are, but in some cases we wonder, as with Jean-Marc St-Pierre, although Mr. Desrochers cleared that up--he was your agent.

You mentioned that your agent said Jacques Villeneuve was paid $12 million U.S. Was that from the sponsorship program?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It was for wearing the name of Canada. I knew at that time the government was giving money for the word “Canada”. I didn't know it was a sponsorship scandal at that time. That's all I know.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Second, it seems your questioning affected your employment at VIA. When they fired you, did you have a separation slip? Did they give you a reason? Were there any documents filled out in respect of your insurable weeks? How did they handle it?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Mr. LeFrançois called me on my cell phone around eight o'clock. I was in a meeting in Montreal at the time, not for VIA Rail, and I tried to negotiate with him. I asked him whether I could leave after the Olympic Games. It was January, and we had to go to the Olympic Games right afterwards. I told him it would be hard to do all that before the Games, and he answered no. He told me that, if I left that day, Jean Pelletier would call Steve Del Bosco to have me go to Groupaction officially.

I asked him what I was supposed to do. He told me that I was to tender my resignation, if I didn't want to go to Groupaction. I wanted to tender my resignation that same morning, but Steve Del Bosco wasn't there then, or the next day. I went there on Friday morning, between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m., and I completed the papers concerning my departure. I told no one why I was leaving VIA Rail, since I didn't know. I was given no reason. I gathered up my things, as they say, and I left.

º (1645)

[English]

Hon. Joe Jordan: Okay, that clears that up. Thank you.

What do you see as the way forward here? I read in some media accounts that you're interested in getting back into this. Have you decided on a course of action personally?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Would I like to go back to VIA Rail?

When I wrote to Prime Minister Martin, I also sent a letter to Mr. LeFrançois asking him to let me return to my position, which Mr. LeFrançois did not do. He subsequently left VIA Rail, and now Mr. Côté, who is acting president, is conducting an investigation into the matter.

[English]

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

Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

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

Like my colleague, I salute the courage you've shown in coming to speak publicly about what you know and your experience at VIA Rail.

I must also say that the presentation you made to us is quite complete. We were given a series of 35 questions, and your document and the preliminary presentation answer all those questions.

I would simply like to ask you two questions, which concern two names that you mentioned. The first is Pierre Tremblay. Is that in fact Pierre Tremblay who was Mr. Gagliano's Chief of Staff and who was subsequently Director General, and thus an assistant deputy minister responsible for the Sponsorship Program?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes. I met Pierre Tremblay, but I didn't know his official title. I have his business card.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So it was indeed the former member of Mr. Gagliano's political staff.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The second name you mentioned was Marc Deschênes.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes. He's a VIA Rail employee. He worked in the marketing department with me.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's perfect.

I'd like to make a final comment. I had the privilege of meeting your daughter, and I told her that she should be very proud of her mother because her mother is a heroine, not only for what she did at the Olympic Games, but also for her work today.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, madame Jennings.

Mr. Kenney, four minutes.

[Translation]

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

In your statement, you said, and I quote: “I had previously heard Mr. LeFrançois say that Groupaction was involved in drug trafficking. I was afraid and psychologically paralyzed.”

Can you explain to us the context in which Mr. LeFrançois made that comment?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, that happened in September 2001. Mr. LeFrançois was encouraging me to start up my own advertising company. I told him I liked my work at VIA Rail because I could do a number of projects there and that I didn't see why I would set up my own advertising business. He then told me something else. I'll try to repeat his words faithfully because I want to quote him right. He told me: “Groupaction is building a big castle and they don't always do things right. They're involved in drug trafficking.” He added that someone should eventually inherit Groupaction's contracts. That's why he encouraged me to open my own advertising company, which I did around September 26, 2001. However, one week later, he called me into his office and told me that he had said too much the previous week and that I should forget that. That's what he told me. Is it true? Is it not true? That's what Mr. LeFrançois told me.

That's why, when they wanted to send me to Groupaction, I didn't agree at all. There were some doubts about illegal things being done there. I especially didn't want to be associated with those kinds of things.

º (1650)

Mr. Jason Kenney: That's why you refused to stay at Groupaction?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, I didn't want to have anything to do with those people.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: I have another question, which relates to the meeting with Mr. Gagliano, we believe here in Parliament. Did you ever, during that meeting, hear any discussion of the sponsorship program?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

[Translation]

As I said a moment ago, I didn't understand Mr. Gagliano's importance or that of Messrs. Tremblay or Pelletier. In my mind, when I sold the project, I always sold it to people at the top, whether it was the president of CN, the president of the bank, or whatever. So I was used to meeting people with titles, and Minister Gagliano was no different from anyone else. I didn't know them before that, so I can't tell you whether he was any more important at that time or whether the Sponsorship Program was mentioned. I know that they tried to obtain the government's approval for our project.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You said in your statement that you were told in March 2001 that everything had to go through Groupaction.

That was with regard to Graphithèque. What does that mean, “everything had to go through Groupaction”?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: That means that, for all the advertising we did, the printed material, the graphics or whatever, the invoice had to go through Groupaction. Graphithèque was very close to my office, a minute's walk away; so for me, sometimes it was easier to leave my office, go to Graphithèque and have them do my work than to go through Groupaction, easier than writing an e-mail asking them to do such and such an ad, phoning 40 times and ultimately having the ad on my desk two weeks later. It was much more efficient to leave my office, go to Graphithèque and come back with the ad in my hands.

That's what I found weird. I always had to write memos, do logistics, which was very complicated, whereas it was much easier to do it there. Ultimately, those who did the work were the Graphithèque people, but the invoice went through Groupaction.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Kenney.

Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Mills are sharing four minutes, two minutes each, I understand.

Monsieur LeBlanc, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Bédard, welcome to Parliament. I endorse my colleagues' comments on your courage. Thank you for appearing among us with your family. I also share other colleagues' feelings about your courage, and I thank you. I can imagine it isn't easy, but I think you're doing a good job. Thank you as well for the document you've given us. It's a chronology that will be very useful to us.

I would like to continue Mr. Kenney's questions on the relationship you saw between VIA Rail and Groupaction. When you began to ask questions—and I understand why, as an employee, you somewhat questioned the billing practices and so on—to whom did you speak? And how did your co-workers or superiors react when you began to ask whether it was helpful or necessary to go through all those stages?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: When I arrived at VIA Rail, the first person who was supposed to show me how the work was done was Pascale Villeneuve. At the time, I was told that Pascale wanted to be transferred to another job. I didn't know who Pascale Villeneuve was; I knew no one. When I started to ask questions, to ask why the same thing was done every year, a reprinting, and why the invoices remained the same... I started to ask questions.

Ultimately, a group of people were to take a trip to Spain, and I was supposed to close the file. So I had to take an in-depth look at the file, to go into the field, to do everything only to realize that the same photocopies and the same posters were posted every year, that new ones were not made and, ultimately, that it was always a repetition.

I subsequently learned that Laurence LeFrançois was going to occupy the position that I was supposed to have, that is to say replace Pascale Villeneuve. It was Laurence who took my place. I was shoved out, you might say.

º (1655)

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: When you started working at VIA Rail, you had the impression that you would get that position. But suddenly it was given to someone else.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It was Laurence LeFrançois, Mr. LeFrançois' daughter.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: So it was his daughter who got the position that you had been promised, or at least that there was some question you would occupy.

I would very briefly like to ask a final question, Mr. Chair.

Within VIA Rail's marketing department or activities, with regard to advertising, did they do business with other agencies, or, in your opinion, was it mainly or almost solely Groupaction that did the work?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: There was the Lafleur agency, which had been bought by Groupaction. Ultimately, I saw that it was always Lafleur that was on the inside. The Gosselin agency in Ottawa was also part of Groupaction. I believe there was also Média/IDA Vision; I think I have the documents here. When you start to go into the system, you see that they're all subsidiaries of Groupaction. Ultimately, you could say that it was just Groupaction.

[English]

The Chair: You've got 45 seconds, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): I think I can do it in 45 seconds.

The Chair: If you can do it all in 45 seconds, it's yours.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Myriam, your fee of $150,000 for MIMI, did you think that was fair?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It was a fair fee. This is what most of my sponsors pay to use my image, but I was also working actively to sell the project.

Mr. Dennis Mills: The fee for Jacques Villeneuve of $12 million, did you know if that was for one year, three years, five years, ten years?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I have no idea.

Mr. Dennis Mills: But it could be. You don't know.

In 2002 did you work at the Salt Lake City Olympic Games?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, I worked for Radio-Canada.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Madame St-Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Ms. Bédard. Thank you for your presentation. It's quite clear you were unfairly treated. So we're going to try to shed a little light on this situation.

First, you said that, in March 1999, you met with Minister Gagliano to present a project. You have a number of years' experience in the field, and I would like you to tell me whether projects are frequently presented to a minister.

In your opinion, isn't that evidence that he had some decision-making power?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: That was the first time I had presented a project to a minister. All my sponsors or those to whom I had sold projects were from the private sector. For example, there was Bell, CN and Vidéotron. They were always private businesses.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: So you were clearly going to sell the project to the minister?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, that's what had to be done.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: When you met Mr. Pelletier, who was the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, did you realize he was someone very important, who could also influence the decision? Were you aware of all that at that time?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: He would definitely influence the decision. At that point, I saw it as a social project. The idea was to prevent violence against children. In doing that for children, the government had the opportunity to play a positive role in society. For me, it wasn't like selling an advertising space.

In short, he had decision-making power, but I felt that was acceptable since it was a social project.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Precisely, with regard to the MIMI project, I don't really understand VIA Rail's involvement. As you said, it was a social project; consequently, it should have been more within the responsibility of the Government of Canada. What was VIA Rail's role in all that?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: In fact, VIA Rail wasn't involved. However, in September or August 2001, that organization was supposed to take part in the project as a tour sponsor. That's all I can tell you. At VIA Rail, it was Steve Del Bosco that I spoke to at that time. There was talk about taking part in the media tour, but that never took place.

» (1700)

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: So you worked for VIA Rail, you were paid by VIA Rail, but you prepared a project for the Government of Canada, which VIA Rail was ultimately to sponsor through Groupaction.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, it is a bit confusing.

I started working on the project in March 1999. That was two years before I started working at VIA Rail. When I started working at VIA Rail, the project was almost finished.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: When you saw that Groupaction had all the contracts, did you ask your superiors why? Were there any reasons? Did you get any answers on that?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, I asked a few questions. I was told that only certain agencies were authorized to have government contracts. I believe there were six, but I can't name them for you. I know that Groupe Everest was among the group, Groupaction and perhaps Coffin Communications, from what I subsequently learned, but at the very end. But I can't name the others for you. I was told there were about six that were authorized to receive government contracts.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You also say in your statement that you thought it was too expensive. So I imagine that you went to see on the outside, that you got comparative studies.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I definitely had friends at other firms. The project I presented to Mr. Pelletier in September or October had been prepared by another firm than Groupaction. It had been done by an outside firm, and the costs were from the outside as well.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, madame St-Hilaire.

Mr. MacKay, please, four minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Ms. Bédard, and your partner.

We very much appreciate you being here today.

[English]

I want to begin by saying that you've covered yourself with glory and your country with your athletic exploits, and your presence here today as well shows you to be a hero again to Canadians.

I want to ask you specifically about contact that you may have had with certain individuals, some of whom you've referenced in your testimony already.

[Translation]

You may answer in French if you prefer.

[English]

Did you ever, at any time, have contact with either the former or the current Prime Minister in association with any of these matters?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: The current Prime Minister; you mean Mr. Martin?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Or the former Prime Minister; Mr. Martin or Mr. Chrétien.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did anyone ever approach you on their behalf in regard to any of these affairs?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't think so.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Subsequent to your making your concerns known, and I believe it was through CBC television that you first came forward and made disclosures, were you ever contacted by Francis Fox?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: You mean for this project?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you ever have contact with Francis Fox, the former minister?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard to give an exact date, but I've known Mr. Fox since probably 2000. I knew him from a committee at Rogers AT&T.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did he contact you after you had gone public with your concerns?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Last January-February, you mean?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, he contacted me to meet me personally. We met the next Monday. When the news broke out on the Friday, I think it was February 27, we met on the next Monday in Montreal.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And what was the purpose of those discussions, if I might ask?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Mr. Fox wanted to tell me that the Prime Minister

[Translation]

was sorry for what had happened, for Mr. Pelletier's comments, and that the government, that Mr. Martin encouraged me to go before the committee, and that the government was 100 percent behind the committee. So he especially didn't want to interfere in the process, and he encouraged me 100 percent to continue my actions.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: So he was giving you assurances that it was okay for you to come forward and say everything you knew.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: When you first raised the concerns about VIA Rail, who did you go to at VIA Rail? When you asked why you were paying so much to advertising agencies like Groupaction and Groupe Everest, who did you go to? I guess I'm asking, did you ask why VIA was using these particular firms?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, I asked Pascale Villeneuve, because she was my first contact there. She was the person who was supposed to show me why we were doing this and why were doing that. So yes, of course I asked her, but I didn't ask Mr. LeFrançois, in my first week, why we were spending that much money. No, of course I would not go to the president for a question like that.

» (1705)

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you ever have contact with a Charles or a Chuck Guité?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No direct contact with Mr. Guité.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I don't know him. I've just seen him on TV lately.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, he's known to many.

With respect to your role at VIA Rail, did you ever have occasion to see any of the numbers, to actually see any of the figures that were being paid out to any of the companies for work that you were doing at that time? Did you ever see any of the figures, what was paid and what was coming in?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, of course.

[Translation]

I was supposed to handle a few files. I've already mentioned Winterlude and the Francophone Games. I had started to work on a few files. So the invoices were there, since everything was in the file. I saw them, and I asked why we were paying so much for things that didn't appear in certain files.

M. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much, madam.

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

Mr. Jobin, you have four minutes.

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Like all other members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I welcome you, Mrs. Bédard. I emphasize that I'm a member from Quebec, that I've followed your career and that I'm proud to be here before you today.

First I would like to ask you a question on your presence here today. What has brought you here? What has induced you to reveal all these facts publicly today?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I've been asked that question quite often. I wanted to make all this public because I heard Mr. Martin say on the news on February 12 that, if anyone knew of any details concerning the sponsorship scandal, they were invited to reveal them. That made something click in my head. I had had that in mind for two years. It was closed up in there, and that invitation opened the door. On the morning of February 13, I wrote one letter to the Prime Minister and another to VIA Rail. At that point, I hadn't imagined I was taking the initiative of talking about such a big scandal. Why do it if you have no protection? Why wade into it? When the Prime Minister said that, I thought it had to be done.

Mr. Christian Jobin: So it was our Prime Minister's responsible attitude that reassured you enough so that you could open up to us about this file that was on your mind.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Exactly, yes.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Could you tell us your job description at VIA Rail?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I was employed as a national programs specialist, which means that I was to organize, to a large degree, events related to the sponsorships that VIA Rail granted to various festivals. I'll give you an example. I prepared advertising for the Francophone Games. The Francophone Games were sponsored by VIA Rail, but VIA Rail also advertised for other Francophone events. So I was supposed to prepare advertising for the Quebec Carnival, Winterlude, because most of VIA Rail's advertising was related to its sponsorships. I was responsible for coordinating all that.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Your document is very well prepared. This is the first time a witness has given us testimony presented in chronological fashion. I want to congratulate and thank you for this.

You started working at VIA in January 2001, and, starting in early January, according to what you say in your document, when you started seeing invoices in the file, you discussed your concerns about excessive costs with Pascale Villeneuve.

What do you mean by “excessive costs”? You had just arrived at VIA Rail at that point.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, but I saw invoices of $8,000 and $10,000 for things where I wondered if work had been done.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Consequently, you weren't satisfied. You weren't convinced that services had been rendered for the invoices you had before you.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: There was no work of equivalent value. For example, I had an invoice attached to a photocopy of the previous year's advertisement. Had there been any creative work? Had new pictures been taken? VIA Rail had been using the same pictures for 25 years. When no new photo shoots or advertising are done, costs are very low. If you take new pictures or if filming sessions are done, costs rise. When there's nothing new, you wonder why the invoice stays so high.

» (1710)

Mr. Christian Jobin: Who was your immediate supervisor at that time?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Pascale Villeneuve was my co-worker, and my immediate supervisor was Keith Moulton.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Did you inform your immediate supervisor that you thought some invoices were suspicious?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No. Pascale was the person who was supposed to show me the files, and I was just starting in my position. So I didn't want to run to my supervisor right away. I had been there for two weeks, so I preferred to start by studying the situation.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Jobin.

Mr. Murphy, please, four minutes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Bédard, like my colleagues I want to extend my thanks for your frank and forthright testimony.

One thing I do want to clarify, and perhaps I'm just a little confused myself, is your employment relationship with VIA Rail. Now, I take it from your notes that you were offered this job by Marc LeFrançois?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: LeFrançois.

[English]

Hon. Shawn Murphy: So you didn't apply for the job through a competition.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

[Translation]

I felt it was quite normal because, when I had previously obtained a sponsorship or a job, I had dealt with the president most of the time. That's the way things were usually done. So I didn't see any difference with VIA Rail.

[English]

Hon. Shawn Murphy: And this was full-time employment?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: While you were employed by VIA Rail, were you excluded from taking other assignments? Let's say Bell Canada, for instance, wanted to use you in their marketing campaign. Was this a restrictive arrangement?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: When I started my job at VIA Rail, I no longer wanted to be a sponsored personality. I wanted to start my professional life and I had no intention of running after advertising contracts left and right. So I didn't need to turn down anything from anyone, Bell or anyone else, because I no longer wanted to have the life of a sponsored athlete. I really wanted to start my professional career.

[English]

Hon. Shawn Murphy: There's one point I'm totally unclear on from your notes, and that is when you were terminated. Before you were terminated, do I take it you were transferred from VIA Rail to Groupaction?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Now, how would that take place? Perhaps it's an unfair question, and I apologize if it is, but Groupaction would be another company. Are you aware of how this happened...or were you just told to go to Groupaction?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes. It's a little bit bizarre, but....

[Translation]

I presented my marketing project for children to Mr. Pelletier. I presented my advertising project for children to Mr. LeFrançois. And I was told a few days later: “Myriam, you're going to Groupaction.” Ads were being prepared for the Olympic Games at that point, and they wanted me to go to Groupaction to work on the Olympic ads. That's what I was told when I left.

[English]

Hon. Shawn Murphy: But when you were terminated--and you've given the exact date here--you were terminated by VIA.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Not by Groupaction.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I was always paid by VIA, and I still had my office at VIA while I was at Groupaction. I had my office, I had my phone number, and everything was still there; it's just that I was physically working at Groupaction.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: So rather than a transfer, you could have been just on some kind of secondment to Groupaction, or loaned to them.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Something like that, yes, probably.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: When you went to VIA Rail, were you given any kind of description of the practices and policies at VIA with regard to employee job descriptions and duties, and general policies with employees?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard for me to say.

[Translation]

When I entered VIA Rail, Diane Langevin briefed me, explaining comings and goings, hours of work, what we were allowed to do and what we should do. In fact there wasn't much to do, and, for the first year, I would be in a period where I mainly had to explore because, in the first year in the marketing department, you have to explore the railway, the services offered and all that. That's sort of what I was told, that the first year would be a year of exploration.

» (1715)

[English]

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Thank you.

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

Monsieur Forseth, s'il vous plaît, quatre minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): Thank you very much, and welcome to the committee.

I'm going to ask you to use your brain power here. What is your conclusion today as to why you were fired? What was the problem? Why did they want to get rid of you with such urgency as you described? What's your opinion on that?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: My personal analysis of all that is that a few days—three or four—after I was fired, there was a Cabinet shuffle here in Ottawa, and Minister Gagliano was sent to Denmark.

Then I understood that there had been something urgent and that something had made them fire me right away rather than a month later, for example. I can't tell you anything apart from that. The only sign I saw was that Cabinet shuffle had followed a few days later.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're drawing an analogy between perhaps--

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: That's my opinion.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're drawing some kind of inference that the way things were set up really wasn't proper, so they had to clean things up when there was a change.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, this is my opinion, and this is what I felt.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

You talked earlier today about unreasonably high bills for, essentially, no new work. When you complained about that, what was the reaction and what was the actual consequence?

[Translation]

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I was essentially told that things had always been that way and that they had always done business with the same companies. At that point, I didn't ask any more questions because I had just arrived. I'd only done two or three weeks of work at the time.

The only consequence I subsequently observed was that my office had been moved, that I had been removed from the marketing group and that I had been put in a corner of the building. It was Laurence LeFrançois who had physically taken over the position that I was supposed to occupy in the marketing group. That's the only thing I saw.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: So you're inferring that you asked the wrong questions, that they wanted someone in that role who wouldn't ask those kinds of questions. You were asking embarrassing questions, and so they put you somewhere else.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: This is what I think, but I cannot speak for them.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You talked at length about the MIMI project. What was the big problem with the acceptability of the MIMI project? It did go ahead, you got paid.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No, I never got paid.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I thought you got $150,000?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No, I did not get $150,000.

Mr. Paul Forseth: You were promised that.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I was promised that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I see.

Was the MIMI project implemented?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, it's in the stores now. You can buy it tomorrow if you want.

Mr. Paul Forseth: And there were certain people who were supposed to be big sponsors of this project.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes. I think we can read on the box the Government of Canada, the RCMP, the Montreal police, and the Sureté de Québec. These are the sponsors or the people who approved this project.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Have you ever received an explanation as to why these promises were made and not followed through?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Not yet.

» (1720)

Mr. Paul Forseth: But their names appear on the document.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'll wait for the next round, I guess.

The Chair: We may not have another round, I'm afraid, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, and thank you for being here, Madame Bédard.

Did you have a contract with respect to MIMI?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I never had any contract beyond the verbal. With all the things I'm talking to you about, I never saw any contract, with the Jeux de la Francophonie, the Bal de Neige, or whatever, I never saw any contract.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Without a contract, did you seek legal advice in respect of the $150,000 for which you had proprietary rights? Did you think of suing?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes, of course, but this is something you have to think about before going ahead. With this project, I was aware that it was on the market only last November. That was the first time I saw it on the shelf.

Mr. Alan Tonks: On the other contracts, you've mentioned that the matter of over-billing with Groupaction came to your attention. Were there contracts or subcontracts through Groupaction that you had carriage of?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: The only thing I saw was bills.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Just bills.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Just bills.

Mr. Alan Tonks: So VIA was not treating you any differently in that you had no contract for your project, and Groupaction had no contracts for any other projects in your files.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I haven't seen any contracts, so I cannot say if there were or not.

Mr. Alan Tonks: The position you were applying for was an administrative position regarding market decisions?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Yes.

Mr. Alan Tonks: That was the position.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It was to do the publicity, not to use my image, but to actually do the work.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Did you ever have a discussion with Mr. LeFrançois when he indicated that you would have that position? At the time that position was offered to you, or you thought you would get it, was it your impression that you would be administering at that level of market analysis, making decisions with respect to project design, and that kind of thing?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: That was my impression, because with CN I did the same kind of work, but it was more on public affairs, and I wanted to be more on the publicity side. I was an object of publicity, so I knew how much they paid for this, how much it cost to do this, how much it cost to do a TV ad. I know those costs, because I have been involved personally in all of those procedures in the last 10 years.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I have just a final question, and I think I know the answer to it. There was, I believe, the Maurice Richard series. I know this is at a much higher level, but you've probably seen the newspaper reports and so on. At the level that program was being administered there were no contracts, I guess. Were you aware of that at that time? Did you see anything? Did you hear anything at that time with respect to that series?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No. The only thing I've seen is a couple of books on Maurice Richard in the office at VIA Rail, a couple of pictures of him. This is the only indication I have.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

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

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

[Translation]

You're welcome, Mrs. Bédard, and thank you for agreeing to testify here before our committee.

[English]

I understand you have recently been inducted into the Olympic Hall of Fame, and I just wanted to add my congratulations.

With respect to the MIMI project, you've presented a very peculiar situation to us. I don't think any of us has any answers, but perhaps the message will go out today as a result of your testimony that you ought to be paid for your work.

You said earlier Jacques Villeneuve got $12 million for wearing the flag or something?

» (1725)

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: “Canada”, the word.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The word “Canada”. Did anybody offer you any money for doing something like that?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No, never.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Never?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How much are you owed on project MIMI, $185,000?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: $150,000.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you have any documents that would be helpful to our work that you haven't brought today--memos, copies of letters, agendas, performance reports, anything you think would be helpful for us to get to the bottom of this?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I brought a couple of documents, but....

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: When you go back, if you see anything that would be helpful, please let us know.

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: I just forgot to write down something--maybe I remembered after--but I knew that at the Bell Centre in Montreal Groupaction was sharing a box with VIA Rail. That's maybe another detail I can add, and I went to that box.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That would be helpful.

You maybe answered this already, but I had to slip out for the budget debate. How often did you meet with Mr. Gagliano?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: Just once. I saw him also but didn't meet with him at the launch of the stamps for the Jeux de la Francophonie. I believe it was maybe in June or July of 2001. He was at the next table from me, but I did not meet him.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Were there ever any requests from him to meet with you?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: No.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are there any individuals you could recommend we should talk to and see if they're interested in testifying? Are there colleagues of yours? Has anyone come to you, since you went public, with some news we should actually pursue?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It would be hard to say, but maybe you should talk to Laurence LeFrançois and Pascale Villeneuve. Pascale had been there for two years before I came there, and she handled all the documents with Lafleur Communications. I believe she is the wife of the president now, so it's hard to say what kind of document you would get, but maybe; you never know.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do you think we should have her as a witness?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's hard for me to say.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: All of us in this Parliament were shocked and disturbed by Mr. Pelletier's comments to you. We found them discriminatory and derogatory and hurtful. I don't want to go back over this again except to say, is there any reason you think Mr. Pelletier chose to lash out like this? Is there any other reason for it? Is he perhaps trying to divert attention? Does he have more information he's afraid you would let out, or is there another reason for such an extraordinary, inappropriate comment?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: For me, I don't understand, as I said in the news, why a person at his level would make such comments. I don't understand that.

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

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

There are two things. One, I have one question, and then we have a motion we talked about yesterday.

First, my question: Madam Bédard, when you met with Mr. Gagliano, and he was there with other people as well, did you think that Mr. Gagliano was intimately involved in the management of the program, or did he just have an overview of policy direction? Was he actively involved in the administration, or do you feel he was backing off and just giving some general direction on the program?

Mrs. Myriam Bédard: It's really hard to say. I would say it was more general, that he was giving more general direction. I don't know if he knew everything about that. I don't know.

The Chair: Yesterday at the steering committee we agreed that we would have a public announcement on giving people the opportunity to come forward. Mrs. Ablonczy, with her legal mind, and also the law clerk, with his legal mind, have a legal motion they will table; they will read it and then we will have it distributed. We're not going to deal with the motion today.

Mrs. Ablonczy first.

» (1730)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This motion arises out of our discussion in the steering committee on Tuesday. The motion is:

That any persons, whether public servants or members of the general public, having information that the person considers relevant to the sponsorship inquiry of this Committee, but who are reluctant or unwilling at this time to come forward publicly, be invited to contact the Public Accounts Committee legal counsel, the Law Clerk, by telephone at (613) 996-1057 or by fax at (613) 992-4317, and that these persons be assured that the Law Clerk will be bound by this motion to respect the privacy of such calls as if governed by solicitor-client privilege, that is, with absolute confidentiality as to the identity of the person providing the information,

And, that further, that this Committee requests the above arrangement for a completely confidential Committee contact be published at the beginning and end of each televised meeting of this Committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ablonczy. They say legal minds do come up with great motions. We will have that translated and distributed and it will be debated.

Before we go, I would like to thank our witness. Madam Bédard, I would like to thank you very much for coming forward. We appreciate the time you have committed to this inquiry. Thank you again.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.