Committee says Guit‚ 'avoided' tough questions

Last Updated Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:49:10

OTTAWA - Chuck Guit‚ has ended two days of testimony before the
parliamentary committee investigating the sponsorship scandal. But MPs say
they learned little from questioning the man who ran the controversial
program.

Guit‚ left without shedding much light on what happened to as much as $100
million in sponsorship money. Guit‚ has admitted that he never questioned
the invoices he received form the ad companies. The parliamentary committee
is investigating the program that saw about $100 million in federal funds
flow to Liberal-friendly ad firms allegedly fighting Quebec separatism.

Guit‚ admitted he kept scant information about sponsorship projects in his
files, in order to thwart anyone who tried to look at them through access
to information requests. Liberal MP Marcel Proulx asked Guit‚ how he could
be sure "if we got value for money. If you got hit by a bus where are
the bills, where's the papers to prove it?"

In effect Guit‚ told the committee to trust him. "I will always say
the same thing, the product was delivered, the results are there."
Guit‚'s 'just trust me' approach to explaining what happened to sponsorship
funds also applied to his definition of political interference.

"Any interference or any communication between a minister's office and
a contracting authority is interference by a minister's office," he
said. Guit‚ admitted he had regular, frequent contact with public works
ministers and people in former prime minister Jean Chr‚tien's office who
directed him to fund specific projects. But he called that input, not
interference.

Interference is a charge Guit‚ reserved for Paul Martin. He says when
Martin was finance minister his chief of staff called him and encouraged
him to use Earnscliffe Strategy Group, a company with close ties to Martin.
"As far as I was concerned at that time it was interference in the
process." Martin's former chief of staff Terrie O'Leary issued a
statement denying Guit‚'s allegations, absolutely. "On every count Mr.
Guit‚'s claims are false," she said in her statement.

But Guit‚'s definition of interference allowed him to incriminate Martin,
while absolving his old bosses of wrongdoing. Guit‚ claimed his handling of
the sponsorship program was impeccable and the proof is a unified country.

That explanation didn't wash with the auditor general, and it failed to
convince MPs, according to Conservative committee chair John Williams.
"We pressed him for two days and we all saw the results which was, he
avoided every question that he really didn't want to answer."

Williams says the committee, and Canadians, are no closer to understanding
what happened to the fees and commissions paid to Quebec ad companies. He
also says the committee is no closer to writing a report on the scandal.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1