Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, Mr. Goodale, for appearing today.
I'm sure you can appreciate why we're continuing to pursue this. It's that nugget of a question that remains about why would a government knowingly waste so much money, and we have not yet found anyone who has said they made the decision and here's exactly why. So in that absence we're continuing to work at this. In the interest of fairness, I think it should be said that your reputation, particularly among parliamentarians, is one of the highest in the House. To me that's a pretty big standard. It's one thing to be popular with the public, but when you can earn the respect of colleagues.... And you were put in this position for that reason, in large part because there were problems and they wanted you to go in there.
Here's my concern. You're an experienced minister, you're an honest man, and you're looking at this and the thing is a go for umpteen million dollars. Your deputy is briefing you--and I'm keeping in mind that you're new--and here you're being told this whole package has come along, and a mere six weeks earlier the secretary of state sent a letter that Mr. Sweet has referred to. Let me also bring in that on March 21, the same meeting Mr. Sweet was referring to in response to a question from Mr. Rodriguez...all that ended with the decision to move. Who made the decision to move? Mr. Gladu? Initially Public Works took responsibility for that decision. Following a letter from Mr. Drouin, which you have read and heard about, Public Works began negotiations with owners of Place Victoria.
So you're an experienced minister, a veteran, and you get there and you find out this whole deal is ready to go, but a few weeks previous a rookie minister sent one letter and suddenly the whole deal is upside down. It would seem to me that a man like you would have a lot of questions of that deputy, both because you're new to the file and because alarm bells would be going off. How are you going to defend someday, sitting right where you are, having made this decision? Help me understand why you didn't just say to a new, young rookie minister, who wants to upset a multi-million dollar deal where tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent, not to mention the time to get the deal in place.... This new minister comes along and says he's not happy with everything and would like it all turned upside down.
It would seem to me, sir, that your reaction behind closed doors would be to turn to your colleague and ask if he were nuts, absolutely crazy. I'm surprised you would even give him the time of day, for the simple reason that if there's not something shifty going on here, there is something definitely wrong that this kind of decision can be taken. You refuse to say there's anything problematic, sir. You want to leave us with the impression, as does your colleague, that everything was just tickety-boo, and if we have any questions they're just a couple of little wrinkles and you can answer them. But when you add it all up, this still stinks.