Public Accounts Committee on June 13th, 2007

[Claude Drouin]

The difference is that Mr. Sweet has stated that he was in favour of it, whereas I had decided that we should not move. What I said was that the deputy minister spoke to me at the time about the drawbacks of the move after he told me that we were moving and I had agreed to the move.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, can you quiet this place down?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Can we have some order here? To the folks on the outside, please take your conversations outside; they're a major distraction. We can't hear Madam Sgro or the witness.

[Claude Drouin]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I told Mr. Sweet that when the deputy minister informed me that we had to move, I told him that was fine, that we would do so. Afterwards, he shared his concerns with me about drawbacks of the move, and that is when I decided to check with Public Works Canada.

I did not challenge the figures, but I have a sheet here that was given to me earlier. It apparently shows that the cost difference would have been $120,000 a year and that we would saved a million dollars on the move, and we would have avoided all the drawbacks. It is written down on this paper. I do not know if that answers your question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Drouin, you said earlier, partly to somewhat justify your decision, that it was not a waste of public funds, because, in any case, the federal government was planning on using the other office space it had rented. But you will agree with me that the tendering process that was begun in 2000 was for office space for the Economic Development Agency of Canada and not other departments, potentially. Do you accept that?

[Claude Drouin]

First of all, I learned today that the process had started in 2000. I was not aware of that. Secondly, I do not know how the people at Public Works Canada function. If it was specifically for them, because they have a number of buildings... That was probably the case. If you say so, I am inclined to believe you. I do not know.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

When a new minister is appointed to head up a department, do you not have to accept requests? Surely there were specifications that were set out by the ministers that preceded you, at the time of the call for tenders. When the people at Public Works Canada called for tenders, they must certainly have consulted the Economic Development Agency in order to establish the specifications.

In your opinion, why did they not specify, for example, that they did not want offices in an area where there was train traffic, or that they did want offices with windows? You got involved after the closing date, even after the bidder was chosen and the contract signed. Why did you wait so long to take action?

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Laforest, I'm going to repeat myself. First of all, I found out about it at that time. I could not have acted earlier: I had just taken up my duties as minister. Secondly, I asked for a review. Remember what I said at the outset. When the deputy minister informed me that there had been a tendering process and that the price for Place Bonaventure was the lowest, I said that was fine, that we would move. I asked him where we were going and where Place Bonaventure was, and he told me that it was across the street. I therefore said we would move. That was the reaction I had, Mr. Laforest.

Afterwards, our deputy minister told us about the drawbacks, the costs, and it was at that point that I asked him if I was telling me that perhaps something could be done. I said I wanted to make sure that the department was working well, that we were not wasting money, given the million-dollar cost of the move, and I asked that there be a verification. That is how I came to intervene, Mr. Laforest.

I have said this from the beginning: I accepted the tendering process, I agreed with the move, and it was following what my deputy minister said to me, in the presence of my chief of staff, that I decided to take transparent action, in writing.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

But even the deputy minister later criticized you for political interference. He told us the following:

After being made aware of Mr. Drouin's letter, I met him at a regular meeting. I told him that in my opinion, it was a mistake to have sent that letter, because this was an administrative matter and he simply should not have got involved.

It is rather odd.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We're running short of time here.

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Laforest, what I understood was that he did not want any written comments. That is very different.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It was interesting to hear Mr. Wrzesnewskyj refer to the work of the Auditor General as “fictitious extrapolation” earlier. I'll leave it at that.

The Auditor General's report clearly says this decision cost taxpayers $4.6 million. You said you saved $1 million in moving costs, so that makes a net waste to taxpayers of $3.6 million.

In your mind, is the threshold for accountability, when it comes to wasting taxpayers' dollars, somewhere between $3.6 million and $4.6 million? You're saying it's okay to waste $3.6 million. You're making the argument, “Hey, it didn't cost $4.6 million. We actually saved $1 million in moving costs, so it only cost $3.6 million to the taxpayers.” Is that okay?

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Lake does not seem to understand how the process works. Public Works Canada makes the decisions. What I asked for was a verification. This is the eighth time that I have said this, Mr. Chairman.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

You've said over and over again the same thing. Obviously we're not going to get answers. You don't fritter away $3.6 million for better windows. You don't do that. You were very adamant that you absolutely had to be at 800 Place Victoria. We're left asking the question--because we're not getting answers--what else was there?

There's no question there has to be more to the story here, because it's $3.6 million. In 2001 Alfonso Gagliano asked that the project be put on hold--in 2001, before you were ever even in the picture. No reasons were given for that. The department, thankfully, decided to overrule that and determined that they needed to proceed with the tender.

A year later, when you came into the picture, you decided to get involved. You wrote your letter to Don Boudria. Eventually Ralph Goodale responded to you, and actually agreed with what you had to say, miraculously, despite the fact that your deputy minister didn't agree with you, despite the fact that the department overruled Gagliano in the first place.

What was so urgent? What was so pressing that you absolutely had to stay at 800 Place Victoria? What was the motivation? What was it that prompted Gagliano to want to stay there? What was it that prompted you to write the letter that Goodale responded to, agreeing to your request?

We don't understand, because we're not getting any answers. You don't do it. You don't waste $3.6 million in taxpayers' dollars for better windows.

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, I find it curious that I'm being criticized for always repeating the same thing. If I was not always asked the same questions, I would not have to repeat the same answers. I'm not going to change my answers because...

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

No. We're asking you to actually answer the question, not repeat the same thing. We don't want you to repeat the same thing. I don't believe..... I think what you're saying is absolute garbage. I want you to answer the questions.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Is that appropriate language?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Let's have some order here.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The fact is the Auditor General said that $4.6 million in taxpayers' money was gone. You justify it, saying you saved $1 million in moving costs.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Finish your question, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So how do you justify wasting, even in your own words, $3.6 million in taxpayers' dollars?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Let the witness answer the question.

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, I will repeat what I said once again.

When I was told that we were moving, I said I agreed. There had been a tendering process. That is the process, and we have to respect it. I agreed entirely with the decision. However, my deputy minister talked to me about the drawbacks, and it was at that point that I asked for a verification in order to see if there were any other options that would comply with the process. In fact, extra office space was needed. That is exactly what I did. I am sorry that Mr. Lake does not understand, but that is the only way I can explain it to him.