Evidence of meeting #19 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 bonaventure.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So there was no competition whatsoever. You circumvented even having a competition. That's what we've learned just now.
Finally, who asked you to provide a submission to Minister Goodale to proceed with the Place Victoria lease?
Noon
As an Individual
It was the culmination of a process of analysis, based on the client's new requirements.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So you independently went back to the minister and told him that you wanted to proceed with a deal with a real estate provider in which there had been no competition. That was your advice?
Noon
As an Individual
The advice to the minister was that the analysis had been carried out in accordance with Monsieur Drouin's request, and it was consistent with the leasing principles.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
As an Individual
There was an economic advantage to the crown. We were recommending that we would be able to meet the client's operational requirements in a manner that was in the public interest.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So it was Drouin who directed you to pursue a deal with Place Victoria without competition?
Noon
As an Individual
Not at all. Monsieur Drouin expressed his wishes and essentially asked us to pursue options to determine whether or not it was possible.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
That sounds as if he was the one who gave you the direction. He expressed his wishes as a minister.
Noon
As an Individual
Minister Drouin did not give direction to officials in the Department of Public Works.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
He expressed his wishes, but you said you were acting in accordance with his wishes. It sounds, from your own words, that you were acting on his direction. When you act in accordance with somebody you're following their direction.
Noon
As an Individual
I believe that I said, and if I was unclear on this point let me make myself clear, that we carried out analysis to ascertain whether or not the client's wishes could be respected. That is what the department did.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
As an Individual
The analysis, carried out in accordance with leasing principles, determined we were able to meet the client's newly defined operational requirements.
Noon
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Why do you believe you did not have to put out to a public tender these so-called new requirements of the client to let all the other participants in that process compete on the same level playing field?
Noon
As an Individual
They weren't the same participants because it was a different property, number one.
The second thing is it was consistent with the government's leasing principles at that time to carry out direct negotiations if there is an economic advantage to the crown. By that time we had determined the lease proposal that was submitted for tender would be a different proposal. We were considering a much lower lease amount and we were also considering a scenario that did not result in any fit-up costs. So the value of leaving the tenants in Place Victoria was a lot less than it would have been.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.
Just before we go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I have a question, Ms. Cochrane. This has always bothered me in this particular case. I appreciate that you may not be the right person to address the question, but you're the only one here now who was in government.
This situation arose as a sidebar to the auditor's report, and it identified the $4.6 million. That was in May 2006, long after the events transpired, long after you left the Department of Public Works. But the sidebar referred to this figure. Now we are having testimony from Public Works officials, Mr. Marshall, and many others, including you, that in hindsight the $4.6 million isn't correct because it doesn't take into account events that occurred after April 2003. My question—and again it may be speculative—is Public Works would have got this report before it was tabled in Parliament, and they would have reviewed it, I hope. Is there any reason why they wouldn't have notified the auditor with a correction disputing the figure she was using? Because they are disputing it before this committee. Do you have any reason to advance on that?
March 4th, 2008 / 12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
It is unusual, Mr. Chair. I would only be speculating if I presented any possible reasons that it may have been an oversight.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
When you were deputy, would you have a practice that if you're audited and you're the chapter we're going in on at Public Works--this was at Public Works--would it not be the practice of the department to closely examine all statements, facts, and assumptions made by the auditor?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, it would have been a practice. That's not to say it was a perfect process, but it certainly would have been a practice. And one would have expected numbers to have been very carefully examined.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We're at the second round, colleagues, and it's five minutes.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, for up to five minutes.