You called him in Montreal?
Evidence of meeting #20 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 space.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 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 space.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
You're not aware of him being in Florida or Arizona, or anywhere else?
11:30 a.m.
As an Individual
I know that in the past he was spending some time in Florida, but I have no idea if he went down to Florida or not, and where he is in Florida. I have no idea.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay. I'll get back to you after the meeting, if you could deliver the address and phone number you have to the clerk. We also have the address and phone number, but we're having difficulty contacting him. There may be very good reason for that, so please don't interpret this as a suggestion that he's trying to avoid us. We're just trying to get more information.
Mr. Sweet.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Chairman, I understand the diplomacy of your remarks. As Mr. Gagliano said, he learned this from the Internet; yet here we have a witness who was actually briefed by someone whom we summoned, and yet we don't have that person before the committee.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Well, we're going to make our best efforts, Mr. Sweet.
But I want to remind you that the reason Janice Cochrane wasn't before this committee is that the staff of Parliament said they couldn't find her. That's an example of what goes on, and yet there might be 5,000 people in Ottawa who know her and where she is.
Mr. Christopherson, for eight minutes.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Gagliano, for taking the time and responding to our request.
I'm sure you appreciate what our difficulty has been throughout this. There was a need for more expanded new space. The train was started. The process was going down the road. Your office put a hold on things and then it got started up again. We got through the whole process, all the way through our whole flow chart here--tens of thousands of dollars probably to go through the whole process for Place Bonaventure. Then, at the very end, for a reason we can't yet find out, nor can we determine who made the decision, there was a decision taken to do a complete 180-degree turnaround and go back to what was then the fourth winning bidder. We're having a problem with it, and that's why we're continuing to push this, sir. There is an unanswered question here.
I appreciate you weren't the minister at the latter stages. So I want to obviously focus on when you were minister. For instance, can you help me understand. It's this business of starting and stopping and starting and stopping that confuses me the most. The process is going along. At tab 7--and you probably have the same book as we do, or something similar--on June 12, there is a memo from the regional director, Quebec region, to the ADM real property services.
On that date, this memo says:
At the June 12, 2001 meeting of the Investment Management Board (IMB), a request to approve a lease project via public tender call was submitted for Canada Economic Development (CED) [...].
The rest of it is the detail.
Then--and this is on June 12, 2001--in the fourth paragraph it says:
A few hours after the board met, we were informed that the Minster's office had an interest in this project. It asked the region to put the project on hold.
Former Minister, can you tell us why? What was the rationale for that hold?
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't know. This is the first time I've found that when I read those documents. I have no clue. The only information I had on this file was the memo from the deputy minister on July 31, I believe, informing me that the decision of the department was to go and tender publicly, and the tender was started.
I read all the documents. The only comment I can make on this is that my staff was asking questions. Therefore, they were waiting for answers from the bureaucrats and the file did not proceed as expediently. But I don't think there was a stop. My staff didn't have any authority to stop anything. The deputy minister would have definitely come to see me on that. I think they were asking questions and the answers were slow in coming, so there was a bit of delay.
In fairness to the process, from February 2001, that's when the client department asked to start the process, and the letter of interest would open at the beginning of September 2001...I think it's a reasonable amount of time.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Ordinarily, sir, that would hold, but in the context of all these questions, I don't think that's quite sufficient.
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I understand where you're coming from. Because of what happened in April 2002, now we say there is a red light, that something happened there too. I'm trying to reassure you that this was a normal routine, as civil servants from the department were meeting with my staff to inform them of what was coming up, so that when the file got to the minister, the staff could brief the minister so we could proceed. I understand you might see something wrong, but I can assure you that from what I know, I don't think there was anything wrong.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On July 19--the following month--there was another memo sent from Mr. Arès to Suzanne Cloutier.
Somebody help me out. Suzanne Cloutier. Who is she? Her title? Nobody knows, okay.
Anyway, there's a memo here, Mr. Gagliano. It says:
Yes, CED has been informed of our strategy and is in full agreement with our approach.
CED is adamant that this project be carried out without any hitches and is even surprised that PWGSC “officials” seem to want to prevent things from going smoothly according to our schedule.
This again is just one more wrinkle. What you answered, on its own, I accept. Now you add this and it's just one more wrinkle. CED are now the ones that are saying go full speed ahead.
Why is your office getting involved, mucking things up, yet at the end of the day that's the department that pulled the plug, that made the recommendation that they ought not go forward? What's with the starting stopping, starting stopping? What's the hesitation? What's being talked about that is such a problem?
Give us some idea. You must have some idea. You paid a lot of attention to real estate in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. You must have some idea what the concerns were of your own officials on a major file.
11:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I have no idea. I have no recollection. When I was invited to come before you, I called my former chief of staff, Jean-Marc Bard. I asked him the same question. He had no recollection. That's all I can say.
I'm trying to give you a rationale of what could have happened. I understand where you are coming from because of what happened in April 2002--
11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
No, no, stop, please.
Let's assume, and I do, that you want to be helpful. So if you don't know the answer and you agree that there's a question that needs to be answered, who would you suggest that we talk to who would have this nugget of knowledge as to what the problem was with this file? Who? If not you and not your chief of staff, who?
11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Do you have a policy staff person you could name and we could haul them in and ask them why?
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
As an Individual
In this case that we're talking about in June and July 2001, I think the person who can give you the answer is Jean-Marc Bard, because the memos are referring to him.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But you just said that he couldn't give you the answers when you talked to him. And you're doing better than us. At least you could talk to him.
