Public Accounts Committee on June 13th, 2007

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Poilievre wants to accuse anyone, he may do so, but he should not ask me to make accusations. I'm not accusing anyone. Public Works and Government Services Canada, that is, the government and the department, who made the decision. I simply asked for a verification.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

By implication, you really are--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Point of order?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Point of order.

I'll just use Mr. Williams' words from last week or whenever, Tuesday, when he said that we are here to seek information, not to accuse people, and so on. So I'll ask Mr. Poilievre to just use your nice polite manners and not be quite so aggressive.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Let's get back on to that mode of seeking information from the witnesses. And the witness is giving his information. Thank you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I just don't think it's fair for him to try, by implication, to put all the blame on Mr. Goodale for the $4.6 million that was wasted. Yes, Mr. Goodale might have signed off on it. He might have signed off to pay $2.1 million for an empty building and to pay an additional $2.5 million to give the contract to the fourth-place finisher. But I don't think it's fair to put all that blame on Mr. Goodale, even though he signed on the dotted line, because you were the one who wrote him a letter asking him to do that. Do you wish to apologize to Mr. Goodale at this point for advising him that way?

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, I find Mr. Poilievre's approach curious. All I did was to ask for a verification. I have never accused Mr. Goodale. If Mr. Poilievre wants to do so, let him do it here, and I hope he would also do so outside this room, because that would show courage, and that is something I would appreciate. I have done nothing wrong. I acted within the rules to see if it was possible to lease two buildings for the federal government, and to save a million dollars which would be invested in economic development, to help the regions. That was my mission within the department.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

We have Mr. Christopherson up now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for your attendance today, sir. I appreciate it.

I have to tell you, though, I'm having some trouble understanding how all this hangs together. We know, for instance, that on May 8, 2001, Jean-Marc Bard, who was the executive assistant to Minister Alfonso Gagliano, sent word that the project was to be halted.

I perused Hansard, and I don't see where we actually chase down why a bureaucracy would take it upon itself to continue something after the minister said to halt. At some point, somebody of great authority has to say start again. We did not find out anything about that particular juncture. That remains an unanswered question. What happened was that they went ahead anyway.

Here's the part that's difficult. The deal, as has already been pointed out, was signed when you stepped in. Now, most people if they come across something.... “Oh, I'm not so sure that's the greatest idea. Where is it at?” “Well, we've already signed the agreement. It's a done deal.” “Damn!” You're a little upset, but that's about the end of it.

You say, sir, that you had questions about this million dollars and that some people didn't want to know. Earlier, you talked about the competency of the wonderful staff we have, and I agree with that. But don't you think those very competent people would have also taken the time to ask around? Would they not have discovered the million dollars that would have been spent?

I don't understand what was so unique about your analysis that nobody else in the entire government had thought that warranted a review of a signed contract that would cost money to get out of right from the get-go. What made you think you knew so much about this, that you had an insight they didn't, that justified reviewing a process that already had a signed contract?

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his question. It will give me the opportunity to repeat what I said at the beginning.

When the Deputy Minister, Mr. Gladu, announced that we were to move, I asked him why. He explained that there had been a tendering process, that Place Bonaventure was the lowest bidder and that we would be moving there. I replied that we would respect the process, that it was clear, legal, and that we would go. But at that point he added that Place Bonaventure was built out of concrete and that trains ran underneath it. He also added that the move would cost over a million dollars, that there would probably be losses in productivity and the risk that some files might get lost. I asked him what he meant. I asked him whether he wanted me to look into the matter. I did not understand why he was telling me these things. There had been a tendering process, it was public, and we were to move. However, given what he told me and what I have been telling you since the start of this meeting, I sent a letter, in a very transparent manner—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But he didn't know about it.

[Claude Drouin]

I beg you pardon?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, but you're making a case because of this new information you got from the deputy, yet the deputy has testified that he didn't know anything about your sending a letter. If he felt that strongly that this was a bad deal, he would have been recommending to you that we review this and use your authority as a minister to counteract the fact that the government bureaucracy had already signed the contract. It doesn't hang together, sir.

Let me continue. Let me ask you this. This is from Mario Arès. He's the regional director. He had an e-mail on May 3, 2002--a couple of weeks after your letter. It was to Suzanne Cloutier. This is the e-mail:

Suzanne, It is not my intention to write a memorandum to the minister on this matter. Ever since we approved the lease

--that would be after the reversal--

at Place Victoria on April 2, 2002, for 5,790 square metres, the decisions on this file have been taken at the corporate level and are in opposition to our regional recommendations.

These are the people who know what space requirements are necessary. He says “The following points support my position”, and then he has a couple of paragraphs. They're available to be seen, but they're not relevant to my question.

Another paragraph says:

Place Victoria never complied with our accessibility requirements for disabled persons and never showed any interest in doing so; and this won't change, which goes against our internal compliance policies.

But here's the kicker. Here's what he said in his e-mail:

It seems clear enough that the insistence on staying at Place Victoria in this case serves interests other than the sound management of public funds.

Sir, this process of reviewing a signed contract stands accused of not being in the public interest. So we add all that together, and I'm telling you, your answers are not sufficient to explain how this staff person feels that there are interests being served.

Help me. What I'm coming to is that there was political interference. I don't know what Gagliano was doing, but initially he sent down word and maybe got nervous or something, but for some reason he sent down word but then backed away.

The bureaucracy starts it all up again; we go through the whole process; we get a signed document. You arrive on the scene, and suddenly we have a whole new view of things. Yet we have senior staff people accusing the politicians in this case of serving interests other than the sound management of public funds.

Sir, this looks like a political fix was involved. Help me understand what was so unique about you and your sense of this that caused you to trigger all that. Give me more than just what the deputy told you, because the deputy supported the signed agreement.

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Christopherson, I don't know how to explain it to you. The deputy minister explained his fears regarding the move, and I told him that I wanted to intervene. He did not mention that. He may have forgotten. My chief of staff was with me, and I told him that I planned to intervene, not to alter the decision but to see whether there was a way of proceeding in full compliance with the rules that would not cost taxpayers a penny.

In the memo you are reading—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But we lost money, sir.

[Claude Drouin]

Please allow me to finish.

Mr. Chairman, could I finally answer that question?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Claude Drouin]

The person says—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Don't take up all my time, that's all.

[Claude Drouin]

Sorry.

The person says that there was no way to make improvements while the existing owner was there, at that time. I should point out that the deputy minister said before this committee that access for the disabled had been improved. However, the report states the opposite. It was done.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, but at the end of the day your intervention cost the Canadian taxpayers somewhere between $2.1 million and $4.6 million.

[Claude Drouin]

That's not true.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks a lot for your excellent analysis.

[Claude Drouin]

It's not true.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Like we really needed you to arrive on the scene and fix things. Everything was fine until you got there. Now we're out up to $4 million and there are questions about whether or not there was political interference in this decision-making.

And you want to sit there and tell me that you are totally innocent of anything other than being a genius at understanding spatial needs?