Evidence of meeting #11 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was steering.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I call the meeting to order.
I don't think I have to read the motion again. It has been circulated and it will be part of the record.
I'm going to ask Mr. Poilievre to speak to the motion.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Chair, the reason I have put forward this motion is that I believe we have not done our work on the Place Victoria file and we are not in a position to prepare or complete a report on it.
That is not meant to denigrate the efforts that all of us, as committee members, have put forward, but to acknowledge the fact that the people who were involved in the decision have not been questioned. We've not heard from any of them.
Just to recap the chronology, we had a government agency asking for new office space. A public tender was issued. A winner was awarded and a contract was signed with that winner. Suddenly and inexplicably, the minister's office intervened to stop that process and ordered the bureaucracy not to proceed with a move to the location of the winning bidder. This intervention is not only highly unusual, given that it overturned an open competition, but it's further inexplicable given that the contract with the winner was already signed and needed to be honoured.
It would be the domestic equivalent of agreeing with one's spouse to move to another apartment. The couple find a better location at a lower price. They begin packing their things and prepare to leave. They sign a lease with the superior apartment, and then they decide they're going to unpack their things and stay in the same location at a higher price with a lower quality, even though they're going to have to pay for the empty apartment at the same time. This is totally inexplicable behaviour.
All of those things could be explained and put into a report if we had heard from the people who made that decision. The only people we've heard from are those who resisted and opposed that decision.
Almost all of the bureaucrats who were hauled before this committee have documentary proof that they were against this peculiar behaviour. We questioned them at length and found really no answers as to what motivated the decision.
Once again, it is understandable why we found no answers because the people we were asking were not the ones who made the decision.
The closest we came to any sort of accountability in our study to this moment was when we invited Mr. Drouin. It should be made clear, though, that Mr. Drouin did not make the decision to stay in Place Victoria. He influenced that decision, rightly or wrongly, but the decision itself was made by the ministers who had the executive authority to make it.
My motion calls on us to invite those ministers to explain what motivated their decision. And it is motivation that we need clarified.
We have an inexplicable transaction, a very peculiar chronology that the Auditor General says wasted at least $4.6 million worth of taxpayers' money.
What motivated this very peculiar behaviour? The only way to find out is if we invite those who made the decision and those who profited from the decision.
As of this moment, we know that Mr. Polachek had some ownership in Place Victoria and stood to profit from this peculiar transaction. There may be others who also had ownership at that time.
We know that Mr. Saputo and his family now have an interest in Place Victoria. It is not clear whether or not they had interest at the time of this peculiar transaction, nor is it clear, even if they did not have an interest, whether they were beginning to take steps towards acquiring an interest.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we cannot file a report on a decision without asking the deciders to explain that decision. We have not done that. We cannot file a report on a peculiar transaction that wasted large amounts of money unless we have evidence of the motivation behind that transaction.
I propose that we call the deciders and the profiteers and ask them to explain themselves. In the interest of their own reputations, I suspect they would not only accept such an invitation, but they would be delighted to receive it.
Thank you very much.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Being new to the committee and not having heard the previous evidence, it certainly sounds like a very interesting topic. I assume it is business that you might call “unfinished business”.
I would move, Mr. Chair, that we send this matter to the steering committee to decide on the direction we should take and the priorities of work. I think it is part of the unfinished business of the committee. There is a steering committee, and I think it should look at this and try to conclude this part of your operation.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Hubbard, to accomplish what you want you would have to move a motion to adjourn debate so that the matter could be considered by the steering committee. Do you want to speak any further on that?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
No, it seems like unfinished business. The steering committee is the master of what goes on within this, so I would assume the steering committee could bring that back with the topic.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I've asked the clerk that, and perhaps I'll ask him to speak to that point.
12:45 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Justin Vaive
Generally, it would be something for which a decision would be called for immediately, so that if the decision is negatived you go right back to, in this case, Mr. Poilievre's main motion, which is the one that's currently before the committee. In this instance, my advice would be that it is non-debatable.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The advice I'm getting from the clerk is that the motion to adjourn debate and refer to the steering committee is non-debatable.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I do have a point of order, though.
I'm not sure how this could be sent to the steering committee given that it has not yet been adopted. The steering committee acts on the agenda of the committee. This motion has not been passed; therefore it's not yet on the agenda.
I can understand the motivation to get this discussion out of the public eye and into a more private setting, and the motivations that might lead some members of the committee to favour that option. However, if it were to be passed by the steering committee, it would come back here anyway. From a procedural point of view, there would be no justification for sending it to a secret committee and then having its decisions later reconfirmed at this committee. It would make procedural sense to deal with it here, would it not?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Poilievre, to answer your question, it's not necessarily to go to the steering committee. The motion is to adjourn the debate. The steering committee would refer to it, you're quite right. The committee, as a whole, can adopt the decisions made by the steering committee. They can amend them or overrule them. They make their own decisions. The committee is the master of its own destiny.
But having said that, I think it's better to have these matters discussed at the steering committee in the first instance, to get what these people might say. There are five of them, and every one would be different. They might be relevant; they might not be relevant. And of course the steering committee would then get back to the full committee with its recommendations to be amended, accepted, or changed as the committee--
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
This is a motion. Do we not deal with motions here at the committee any more? We deal with motions here all the time. Why would we want to push those motions into a secret setting? I don't understand.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Poilievre, a lot of the members feel that the scheduling of witnesses should originate at the steering committee.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, but the listing of it should be done at the...I meant to say listing of witnesses.
Mr. Poilievre, is this...?
A point of order, Mr. Laforest.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
On a point of order.
We have two motions, one moved by Mr. Poilievre and a second one by Mr. Hubbard. The later motion was tabled today without prior notice. I believe committee members must give their unanimous consent in order for the motion to be deemed votable. I do not think there is unanimous consent. At the very least, we would need to check and see if all members agree to allow the motion to be put to a vote. We have one motion that was properly moved. In my opinion, it must be voted on by the committee before being referred to the steering committee.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, I've been instructed by the clerk, Mr. Laforest, that this is not a matter that goes to the substance of the motion, and it does not require the 48 hours' notice. It's a motion to adjourn.
I would like to put the question on Mr. Hubbard's motion, and somebody did ask for a recorded vote, I believe, so I'll turn it over to the clerk.
Mr. Hubbard's motion is to adjourn debate.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Now, colleagues, we're going to go back to Mr. Poilievre's motion as presented. Now we're into debate. Any further debate?
Mr. Laforest.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
That is the motion I wish to discuss. I was waiting to hear Mr. Poilievre's arguments in defence of his motion. He mentioned the fact that, of all the witnesses that appeared before us, Mr. Drouin was likely the only one who could have shed light on the whys and wherefores of the decisions that were made.
Having attended these meetings and listened to the witnesses who testified before Mr. Drouin, I am still convinced that we did not get the answers we in fact wanted to hear. The witnesses avoided certain questions and did not provide, in particular Mr. Drouin, very clear answers to our questions.
Some witnesses told us that losses will undoubtedly not amount to about $4 million, as Ms. Fraser estimated they eventually would. However, I feel that it is a matter of principle. How is it that such a decision was made despite the fact that a lease had already been signed? These questions went unanswered. In light of that fact, I agree with Mr. Poilievre's motion.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
This is unfinished business, as has been mentioned.
Mr. Poilievre made some valid points in saying that people who made decisions and benefited from the decisions made should appear as witnesses before this committee. Whether or not these are those individuals, I'm not sure if that has been established. Some of that work could probably be done in the steering committee--perhaps part of what Mr. Hubbard was trying to achieve.
He may consider it as a potentially friendly amendment that we word it so that additional witnesses, those who were the decision-makers or who benefited, are called to appear. Then we could let the steering committee try to establish who those people are. We may inadvertently call people who are not necessarily directly in the decision-making process or benefiting. The way these names have been presented seems to have a political partisan colouring to it, and I'm sure that's not what Mr. Poilievre intended in presenting this motion. He truly intends to strictly clean up some unfinished business.
So if he would consider that as a friendly amendment, perhaps that would be beneficial to this vote.
