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.
12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean acquiescence. It does mean that one--
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
But you didn't have a dream and wake up in the middle of the night after the end of March and all of a sudden and say “We must cancel this entire process and enter draft negotiations”. There had to be some reason for it, and Mr. Drouin was part of that reason. Right?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay.
Back in 2001 there was an extensive analysis done of the needs of the client—extensive. It went on for months on end. There must have been tons of public servants involved in that process. Then when we got into the procurement process, the client actually visited the various sites, which would have been very time-consuming, as well.
You've got to be honest with me. The value of public servants, the cost of public servants, is a cost. It's very important. They're valuable people. So there would have been a fairly significant cost involved with all this analysis and the process in tendering property. Am I not correct in that?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I know you can't quantify that, but it would be significant.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
And nobody has really discussed that cost today either, in any of the analyses, but it is a significant cost.
The thing I'm getting at is that we have this analysis. Everybody said these are the specifications we have to have. They visited all the sites. This was the process, and we got Bonaventure as the lead outfit. But out of the blue, all of a sudden everything changes. Mr. Gladu doesn't change; he wants Bonaventure. But somebody says “All this analyses isn't worth anything. Now we can just go back to the existing premises with no fit-ups or no changes, and so on. It will just suit the department fine.”
It's really hard to believe that occurred in a matter of days. At the end of March there was no thought of this thing happening. Then Mr. Drouin writes a letter early in April, and all of a sudden this is back on the radar screen.
Did you do an...? This is really hard to believe. That's my point. Is this a normal sort of a thing, in your experience as a deputy minister? Is this how we do business in this country?
12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
No, it certainly was not normal. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that it was Monsieur Drouin's letter that triggered the analysis of other options.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
The other thing I find really hard to accept or understand is that we do all these analyses and then out of the blue in March we back up on it. We say “No problem with Bonaventure. We can just fill that up. We can find clients.”
It's my understanding that we're talking about 300 public servants moving over to these new premises. Did the government of the day suddenly create a new branch of government whereby we could immediately backfill 300 new public servants into Bonaventure? Who moved into this facility? Were they homeless people or people out in the streets who we suddenly decided to move into Bonaventure? Who was the client we moved into this place? And what analysis did we do on that?
March 4th, 2008 / 12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
There was analysis done. In fact, both Mr. Gladu and Mr. Couture knew of other demands that were being made to find space for other clients within Montreal. That space was eventually used for those people.
I can't be more precise than that, because I don't know who eventually went in, but I know that Veterans Affairs was one client, as well as, I think, one of the crime prevention units from Solicitor General or Justice Canada. But I do know that analysis was carried out.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Christopherson now, for five minutes.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to go back a little, to where Mr. Fitzpatrick was.
Mr. Couture was the regional director general, correct, and the director of client services was Mario Arès?
12:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That sounds like a pretty important role. Client services are the people who deal directly with your client agencies, and this would be the director of that--a fairly senior position.
I'm going to take a moment and reread this. I want to make sure it's in this Hansard, just to bring it to everybody's attention again, and then I have a couple of questions.
This is an e-mail from Mr. Arès. Are you familiar with his e-mail? Are you familiar with the document I'm about to go to?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Good.
I'm quoting now:
...this file have been taken at the corporate level and are in opposition to our regional recommendations. The following points support my position:
I am not familiar with the current state of the discussions/negotiations between the leasing officers and Place Victoria; these officers report to the Minister's Office. I therefore conclude that our minister knows more about the situation than I do.
The e-mail from Claude Séguin to Tim McGrath (April 26) contains false information; our IAR clearly states that direct negotiations with Place Victoria are inconsistent with the six principles for renewing this lease on-site, so I do not know why he is saying the opposite. CED never asked for or insisted on accommodation in a Class A or Prestige building (even though this is everybody's wish).
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. I cannot agree to cover in an administrative manner a decision that is difficult to justify financially, because it is costly (the client, CED, had agreed to move to Place Bonaventure, or as a last resort, we could have signed a lease with the second-lowest bidder [CED agreed], which would have been more beneficial to the Crown).
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.
Who will sign to approve the exception this time?
This partly explains why it is preferable that I not write a memorandum to the minister on this matter because it would not say what certain interest groups would want it to say.
First of all, your general reaction to that.
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I am aware of Monsieur Arès' subsequent testimony, in which he acknowledges that he wrote that memorandum based upon an assumption that we were entering into direct negotiations at the tendered lease rate, with all of the attendant fit-up costs that would have been required for greater space in Place Victoria than had been described in the client's operational requirements. He was not aware of the discussions that had been had with the owners of Place Victoria to reduce the lease rate and to look at a more modest proposal.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Probably because these events took place within a fairly rapid timeframe.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, his concern, when he raises it, is that the minister knows more about this than he does, and he's supposed to be the key person.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I understand we're going to dissect this nice and neat, and you'll give us the best answers you can, but when you add all this up, it still stinks.