Public Accounts Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Gary Polachek]

I guess replacement with a new tenant. At the time that we received notice we were not happy, and between the period that we received the notice of non-renewal and finding the new tenants, it was the same gulp. The difference is right now, with the passage of time, we've secured that inventory.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Finally, you've seen what happened with the new lease. What difference competitively was there between the old lease and the new lease? In other words, how much more is it costing the Government of Canada this time, as opposed to what they're paying your company on a per square foot or per square metre basis?

[Gary Polachek]

As part of preparing for today, I did not take a look at that. I don't have that information.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, somebody could look into it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The last examiner is Mr. Poilievre.

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

I have a question for Madam Cochrane.

Was a gentleman by the name of Albano Gidaro placed in the department any time throughout the duration of the events we are discussing today?

[Janice Cochrane]

I'm not familiar with that name.

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

You have not heard it before.

[Janice Cochrane]

No.

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

Okay.

Secondly, were you aware of any activity by the minister's office that would suggest, paraphrasing Mario Arès, that interests other than the sound management of public funds were served?

[Janice Cochrane]

No, I'm not.

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

I'm going to conclude by addressing what I believe to be the core contradiction that led to the $4.6 million in waste identified by the Auditor General, and that is, that you and other public servants clearly identified that the Place Victoria option was not the best option for taxpayers. A retroactive justification seems to have since been contrived, but all of your own writings indicate the contrary. I want to know why you thought it was possible to change the rules of the game after the game was over, and then award the prize to the guy who finished fourth.

[Janice Cochrane]

First of all, in the competitive process, the tender process, the winning bid actually was the person with whom we signed the lease, so that transaction was finished. When we began to negotiate with Place Victoria, we did so on the basis of an analysis that determined that there would be an economic advantage to the crown. The amount of space that the client was looking for was reduced. The amount of fit-up that they were looking for was reduced, and also the value of the rent.

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

With respect, you have said that before a number of times, but I would think that if the client were asking for essentially a different product--a different space, different specifications--then you would issue a public tender, a public competition, under the new guidelines the client was seeking, instead of just awarding it automatically to the incumbent. Why would you have done a competition in the first place then?

[Janice Cochrane]

We did a competition in the first place because the amount of space that was required by the Economic Development Agency was more space than they were occupying at Place Victoria. It wasn't just a new lease for the same space, so when the requirements changed, we looked at the leasing principles. The leasing principles do not require that you go to tender each and every time you extend a lease. In fact that could be--

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

But you had done that before. Why didn't you just extend the lease in the first place?

[Janice Cochrane]

It wasn't the same thing, because they wanted more space. Initially they were looking for more space. This time they were looking for an extension of the lease for the same amount of space they were occupying.

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

We're just going back around in circles, around and around and around.

I think you've done a very good job being loyal to your former ministers and political masters, but I think, at the same time, it has not reflected well on you, because you're not giving us the answer we're seeking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I don't think you can make personal comments here. The witness--

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

Chair, I know that this is very sensitive for you and your party, but I'm not going to be silenced by your gavel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, you are. You've made an inappropriate comment, and I'll ask the witnesses to disregard it.

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

I know that this is an embarrassing file for you and your party, but that's just the reality you're going to have to get used to.

I'll give you one last opportunity to explain what interest could possibly have motivated this waste of $4.6 million by the Auditor General.

[Janice Cochrane]

The figure, I understand, that results in a loss to the crown, essentially, was $2.1 million, not $4.6 million.

I frankly don't think there's anything sinister in this file. There were errors made and judgment calls made that maybe, in the fullness of time, might have been different. But I think that while it was unusual, due process was respected, and there was no inappropriate interference by ministers.

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

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have 37 seconds.