Evidence of meeting #24 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Would you say that the letter that you wrote to the Minister of Public Works was pretty much the extent of your involvement in this case?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I cannot see any other reason to ask you additional questions.
Mr. Boudria, you were the Minister of Public Works during the time when Mr. Drouin wrote the letter regarding Place Victoria. Could you just maybe go over again for the committee what your response was at that time?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
First of all, as I indicated initially, I was the Minister of Public Works for only a brief period of time. I believe that Mr. Drouin and I were appointed to our respective positions on the same day in the same cabinet shuffle.
I didn't recall this, but I believe that we may have had one oral conversation about this, and it seems that I may have asked Mr. Drouin to put his request in writing and send me a letter about his concern about moving. I got the letter, forwarded it to my department, and within a few weeks I wasn't there any more.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
But there were no additional actions that you took or additional involvements?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
No. Frankly, there wouldn't have been any time. The letter he sent to me is dated April 15. Assuming that I took a few days to look at it and then gave it to the staff, it would have been some time in late April, and by the end of May I wasn't there. So that letter wouldn't have been responded to. I left almost immediately afterwards, in other words.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Well, Mr. Chair, it will be interesting to see how this meeting gets stretched out into an hour. I've finished my questions.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing again.
Department of Public Works guidelines require an economic advantage to justify a direct non-competitive negotiation. We've heard a number of times that after direct negotiations the rental rate went down from $430 to $308. That's correct, is it not?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
That's what I read. I never followed up on the matter to find out what happened afterwards. I did not concern myself with the matter after my letter. At one point, I learned that Public Works and Government Services had managed to find a solution, it was able to abide by the conditions of the Place Bonaventure lease and renegotiate the Place Victoria lease, where we were at the time. This solution enabled us to lower costs because there was no request for retrofitting. We only made the changes required that would give access to individuals with reduced mobility. That's what I was told, and that's also what I read in the committee reports.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
And there are other costs that were referenced. A $1 million cost of moving was avoided. It was also mentioned in previous testimony that it would have taken about a week. There were 300 employees--or how many employees--and you would have lost a week's worth of productivity. Are you familiar with how many employees were in that location?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
According to my figures and those I have seen, I must confess, there were approximately 300 employees spread-over three floors: the 39th, 40th and 41st if my memory serves me correctly; maybe it was the 38th, 39th and 40th floors. At the time, Deputy Minister Gladu mentioned that the cost varied between $500,000 and $1 million, plus the cost of non-productivity and the possibility that files might get mixed up. We took these factors into account when we requested verification.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay, so there was between $500,000 and perhaps as much as $1 million in lost productivity, and $1 million in moving costs. I also understand from testimony by Mr. Gladu that “Improvements that should have been made were not made”, and he certainly got into the nitty-gritty. He said:
For example, the carpeting was very dirty but was not able to be changed. However, people at the Agency did what they had to do and were able to perform their work effectively
I guess they were willing to put up with dirty carpets and not having to move after 10 to 20 years in the same location--25 or 30 years for some of the people. Were there a lot of complaints from that staff of 300 about having to move, after having worked in that location for such a long time?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I never heard about such complaints. However, the deputy minister did tell me that the employees would be very disappointed if they had to move. As you mentioned, some had been there for many years. The work environment was very good, there were many windows, whereas on the other side, there was cement, the train went in front of the building and the restaurant was lacking. Those were the words used at the time to tell me that the move could have a negative impact on employee motivation. Given these factors, I asked that a letter be prepared to ascertain whether or not there were possibilities.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Chair, I have a comment, not a question.
I think it would be quite helpful, as we prepare to write the report, to request from the Auditor General how she arrived at her numbers. From our understanding, she used an amount of $430 per square foot. We've now had testimony and documentation that the real amount, the actual cost, was $308 per square foot. We don't know whether or not she took into account various other costs: moving costs, lost productivity costs, less square footage.
Before we're able to draw any conclusions, I think we should request that the Auditor General and the department provide backup for the various numbers. It's certainly not clear at this time whether or not there was a real cost to the taxpayer.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Let me respond to that, Mr. Lake. We're not going to get into debate here, but we are waiting.... I don't think the fault lies with the Auditor General as much as with the Department of Public Works. We asked for some of that information, and as of yet they haven't given it to us—although we were told that we would get it before today's meeting. So I'm going to be following up on that issue. It is a relevant point, but it is a dispute between the figures used by the Auditor General and.... Her evidence was based on the information she has. My personal view is that she's correct, based on the information she has. We'll sort that out.
We do have two witnesses here today, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, so I want to keep it going. I don't want to waste their time. It's really not a point of order, so I want to move on to Mr. Laforest.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I just wanted to express my agreement with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that, based on everything we've heard, we should have the Auditor General look into this again.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Boudria and Mr. Drouin.
In the background information pertaining to the locations leased for the same department, at more or less the same time, there is an e-mail sent on April 2, 2002, by the Montreal office of the Department of Public Works. This e-mail informed Deputy Minister Beal that the agency Deputy Minister, André Gladu, had confirmed, on March 28, that he was in agreement with the agency moving to Place Bonaventure. In this e-mail, officials noted that Mr. Gladu had told them that the move had been approved by Mr. Drouin, who was the Secretary of State responsible for the agency. The e-mail also indicated that Minister Boudria had not yet given the go ahead and had sought advice as to when to proceed.
Mr. Boudria, to whom did you seek counsel about this matter? Why did you do this, given that certain individuals from the department, deputy ministers, told you that they wanted to proceed? Why did you say that you were going to seek counsel before approving the matter? The e-mail came from Mr. Normand Couture.
12:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't know, this individual certainly did not work for me. I'm going to have to speculate somewhat in answering your question. If that is the case, you will have to forgive me.
I received the formal letter from Mr. Drouin on April 15. It appears that he had telephoned me or had discussed the matter with me in person. At any rate, there had been a verbal conversation followed by a letter. So at an earlier time, I had been asked for this information.
To answer the question put by the member more specifically, I had received a recommendation or authorization to award a lease. This recommendation, dated March 22, must be in the members' file. I did not sign it. I was supposed to write “I agree” or “I do not agree”. According to this document, I did not sign it. In all likelihood—and this is what I'm speculating—I was waiting for Mr. Drouin's letter in order to find out, in writing, what his problem was exactly.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In the e-mail I referred to, he said that he agreed with a move to Place Bonaventure.