Evidence of meeting #67 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was asked.
A recording is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
Unfortunately, you will never experience this type of situation, because the Bloc Québécois will always remain in the opposition.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
We do, however, have the opportunity to ask you pointed questions which you must answer.
As an Individual
I would ask you to please let me finish, Mr. Laforest.
You would have the opportunity to meet terrific public servants who are working very hard on behalf of the population...
Bloc
As an Individual
As the minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada, I wanted to make sure that the agency's employees, who are very hard working... I did what I had to do, which was to look at all options, while respecting the rules, without intervening directly and without it costing taxpayers a single penny.
I therefore repeat that I made a transparent request in writing. I don't think I can be any clearer.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
But can anyone be clearer than the Auditor General?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I would like to make an interjection.
Could the members keep their questions as short as possible and the witness keep his answers as short as possible as well? It's kind of hard with a conversation going on between the two members, though.
Thank you.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In conclusion, I think you would agree that nothing is clearer than the way the Auditor General put it: there were additional costs of $4.6 million; these costs were very difficult to justify, even though you say you were concerned about the well-being of employees, and so on. This was an administrative matter, and your intervention was political and highly questionable.
I would therefore ask you to answer the question.
As an Individual
As I was saying, when the deputy minister told me about the situation, and when he mentioned that the move would be hard on employees, and so on, I understood that I had to, without interfering, see whether it was possible or not to find a solution in accordance with the rules. I wanted everything to be transparent, so I wrote a letter to find out whether staying in the building was possible. Otherwise, we had to comply with what had been decided.
Sir, you said that a potential amount of $4.6 million was involved, but I would like to see the numbers because based on the information I received, after having calculated everything, and after taking into account the money saved and the reduced rent, it was more advantageous to stay put. However, I will not say any more on the subject, since I am not an expert, and this was the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and it made the decision.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order—
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
A little earlier you said that it was difficult for you to follow the question and answer exchange between Mr. Drouin and myself. I would simply like to point out that there is always a delay when simultaneous interpretation is being provided. I don't see how it would be more difficult to follow questions and answers in French than questions and answers in English, which is what we have to deal with. The situation is the same for everyone. So it was not more difficult for you to follow my questions and answers than any others.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Drouin, the deputy minister supported the decision to move to Place Bonaventure. There was a tendering process in which Place Bonaventure came out on top and Place Victoria ranked fourth. However, you suddenly intervened on behalf of one of the bidders, and the Auditor General revealed that your letter cost taxpayers $4.6 million.
How can you say that you managed your department appropriately, when your officials, the independent process and the Auditor General, in short, everything and everyone indicated that your intervention was a bad decision?
As an Individual
Thank you for your question.
As I said from the outset, I was not sure that Place Bonaventure was the best choice, but you are right, it was the cheapest one. That's a significant difference. The deputy minister of the day, Mr. Gladu, had said that it was a concrete building and that trains ran underneath it, whereas the Tour de la Bourse, at Place Victoria, had a glass facade. I simply asked people to look into the matter to see whether it was possible to save a million dollars while respecting the rules.
You are making me out to be much more powerful than I actually was, Mr. Poilievre, if you believe that the simple fact of my writing a letter asking to look into the situation amounted to interference and lead to the reversal of the original decision. That was up to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the minister of the day asked officials to look into the matter. At the time, he was told that additional space would be needed for federal public servants.
So, if you take officials—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
But I'm not the one who is saying this. I'm not accusing you of having reversed the decision. The evidence is before us.
Until the Secretary of State,...Claude Drouin, forwarded a letter, I was perfectly in agreement with the idea of moving to Place Bonaventure. Indeed, I had confirmed that in writing to my colleague from the Department of Public Works and Government Services..., Mr. Normand Couture. The April 15 letter from...Claude Drouin came as a complete surprise. I did not know he had intended to send this kind of letter to his counterpart at Public Works and Government Services. I was only made aware that this letter had been sent a few days later. To be perfectly honest, I don't recall who told me. But, if memory serves me, it was someone from...Public Works....
Anyway, the point is that the bureaucrats were perfectly in agreement with following the competition and giving the contract to the winner until your letter was sent. That's what your own former deputy minister indicated before this committee. It's not me who's suggesting that you single-handedly threw the contract to your favourite; it is the preponderance of evidence and the testimony of your own deputy minister.
Now we have a report by the Auditor General in which you are named, and in which she says that your intervention and the changes that it precipitated caused a total of $4.6 million in additional costs to taxpayers that would not have been incurred.
The lease had already been signed with Place Bonaventure. So even if you, for some reason, believed that was the wrong location, even if you disagreed with all of the bureaucrats, and even if you disagreed with the independent competition, how could you justify having broken a lease on which you then you had to pay penalties? You were forced to rent an empty building in order to stay with Place Victoria. Explain how that could possibly be a good decision.
As an Individual
I would like to respond in English, but unfortunately that is too difficult for me. I do not want to make you suffer, and I want to recognize our very competent interpreters. I appreciated their work for nearly nine years. But perhaps I speak too quickly.
I was surprised—
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
I just think that, before these committees--I hope the clock has stopped--there's this waste of time that witnesses tend to play out, and we're all the victims of that.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I would remind the witness of that. It's an ongoing problem in the committee. Witnesses are asked questions, and they seem to get off on tangents. Try to answer the questions that are asked directly and stay on topic, sir.
As an Individual
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can I use the time Mr. Poilievre took from me?
I am astounded that Mr. Gladu was surprised, because when he told me about it, I was with my chief of staff—at the following meeting or at the one where it was announced—and I told him that I would be looking into the matter. However, perhaps I did not mention that I would do so in writing, since I wanted to act in a transparent manner, but he knew that I was going to be transparent about it.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That's not my question. This is my question. PWGSC had to pay $2.1 million in unproductive rent to the winning bidder in order to pay for an empty building because you and Mr. Goodale had overturned the independent competition to favour the fourth-place contestant. How do you justify paying $2.1 million to rent an empty building?
As an Individual
I was going to tell you that I did not reverse the decision, I asked for a verification. That's very different, Mr. Poilievre. I asked whether it would be possible to save the million dollars the move would have cost.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, I know it was Mr. Goodale who actually made the decision, and his decision cost us money. But why would you advise Mr. Goodale...? Was it not a disservice on your part to Mr. Goodale to put him in this kind of situation where he would sign off on renting an empty building for $2.1 million in order to favour a fourth-place finisher? Were you not giving him bad advice?
As an Individual
Mr. Poilievre, I was told that the government would need additional office space and that it would be filled by other people. So there was no double payment. Public Works and Government Services Canada leases the space it needs for all departments and the public service. Additional office space was needed and it was leased at Place Bonaventure.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I don't think it's fair of you to put all the blame on Mr. Goodale. The reality is that you wrote Mr. Goodale a letter. You're right, he did sign off on it. And ultimately, his name is on the dotted line for the extra $4.6 million wasted. But you were the one who advised Mr. Goodale. So we can't blame him entirely for all of that. That's not fair, and I won't allow it.