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.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Okay, then maybe you could just explain your words from today, when you said “...how we could have gotten involved in these events except to ask political questions”. What did you mean by that?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Political questions.... As I said, we wanted to make sure that the minister was willing or not willing to move.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.
There's a couple of minutes left for Mr. Sweet, so if you want to use them, Mr. Fitzpatrick, you're welcome. Two and a half minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Bard, using that flow chart again, where you say it's very important at the front end to consult with the client and the minister to make sure they really want a change, and that's a good practice.... And I think it probably is a good practice: you want to get the facts straight at the beginning so there's no misunderstanding later. It's my understanding that it's very unusual in your practice at the tail end of the process to get involved and to intervene in the process. I think your answer to that was yes as well.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Would you therefore be suggesting that for Mr. Goodale's office and Mr. Drouin's office to get involved at the tail end of the whole operation after the tenders were in, after they had been awarded, and to start directly intervening, that would, from your practice, be a very unusual practice?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
But you wouldn't have done that when you were working for Mr. Gagliano?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
As Mr. Gagliano already answered you on a similar approach, it's hard to say, because we weren't there.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Yes, well I believe I read that too, but it's hard to say if we would have done—
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
So you would support your former boss on that interpretation, that this would be an unusual thing, at the tail end, to directly intervene and start rewriting leases.
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
Unusual being not a regular thing as programmed within the procedures of the department.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
That concludes the round involving Mr. Bard.
Mr. Bard, on behalf on the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for taking time to appear before us via teleconference.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to adjourn for two minutes, so that the technology can be changed, and welcome two additional witnesses for the final hour of the committee meeting. So we will suspend for two minutes.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Colleagues, at this point in time I'd like to call the meeting back to order for the final hour.
For this hour we have the Honourable Don Boudria, a former government House leader and a number of other titles, but he also served in the capacity as minister of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. We also have reappearing before the committee the Honourable Claude Drouin, minister responsible for Quebec regional development.
Thank you very much, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Boudria, for appearing here today.
We're going to get right into the committee business. I'll invite either Mr. Boudria or Mr. Drouin to make any opening comments.
Mr. Boudria, do you want to go first?
Noon
Don Boudria As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before you today.
As the members all know, I was one of you, so to speak, for many years. I sat in the cabinet for seven and a half years, including a period of approximately four and a half months as Minister of Public Works, specifically between January 15, 2002, and the end of May. In all probability it is because I was there during this short period of time that you want me to testify today. I am pleased to be here and answer your questions, to the extent that I am able, about an event that took place more than six years ago. In my case, this did not take place, because nothing happened during the period when I was in this position.
Noon
Claude Drouin As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I know that you are working very hard. I sat on committees for seven of the nine years that I was here, and I known that you are given a ton of information and that it is sometimes difficult to remember everything.
I would like to tell you at the outset that when I arrived, in 2002, Deputy Minister Gladu, for whom I have a great deal of respect, told me that we had to move. You will recall that I did mention this here, if my memory serves me correctly. I asked him where we were going and he told me Place Bonaventure. At that time I did not know Montreal very well so I asked him if this was very far away. He told me that it was just across the street. I then said that we could do the office move ourselves.
It was then that he told me that as far as the employees, quality of life, etc., were concerned, that represented anywhere from $500,000 to a million dollars, and he found that a bit difficult. I told him that the process was in line with the rules and that we could not do much about it. From what I understood, he implied that we should do some checking. The mistake I made at that time was to react as a member of Parliament, namely I wanted to find a solution, to help. The people from the public service, at Canada Economic Development and as is the case elsewhere in the country in the various departments that I dealt with, were very dedicated. I wanted to ascertain and I requested, in writing and in a transparent fashion, that we verify whether or not there was a possibility. That is what triggered the process.
The Auditor General's report indicated that the lease was negotiated directly, with no benefits, except that the price was $438 per square metre instead of $308. I did not intervene in any way in the process. I simply requested a letter. If we had been told that nothing could be done, we would have respected that.
If you recall, Canada Economic Development was lacking money. The purpose of this agency is to grant loans to companies to assist growth and maintain economic development. That was my responsibility. We were going to put between $500,000 to $1 million into a move. That is why I intervened, and I wanted to mention that.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Merci, Monsieur Drouin.
Okay, colleagues, what we're going to do for this one hour is follow the same procedure we did in the previous hour. We are going to have one round of six sessions--two Liberals, two Conservatives, one New Democrat, and one Bloc Québécois. If you want to share your time, you may, but there are going to be only two rounds for the hour. I remind the Liberals and the Conservatives of that.
On the first round, we start with the Liberal Party, and I understand it will be Mr. Holland. The floor is yours.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Boudria and Mr. Drouin, for appearing today.
We will start with Mr. Drouin. It is his second time back before the committee on this issue. I am not sure of the value of your coming back for a second time, but we'll try to see that. I suppose some people in this room--and maybe Mr. Poilievre--are interested in hearing this again.
I want to go over the facts again just to confirm. You were the minister of state for the Economic Development Agency for the regions of Quebec from January 15, 2002, until December 11, 2003. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
You sort of addressed this in your opening comments and when you appeared before the committee before, but I just want to underscore it so that it is clear.
Would you say that your incentive to get involved in this particular file and the actions you took when you first heard about your department's proposal to move from Place Victoria to Place Bonaventure was the concern around employee productivity and the hefty cost of moving? Was that your principal motivation in taking the action at the time?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, indeed, that is clearly the reason why I intervened and requested that we respect the rules, if possible. I realize today that that created quite an incident. My intention was not really to go against the rules. I was thinking about the employees, productivity and the money that could be invested in our companies.