Public Accounts Committee on April 3rd, 2008

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I find that interesting, because back on June 13, 2007, when you were being questioned by Pierre Poilievre, he quoted a couple of times from Mr. Gladu's testimony, without actually even crediting Mr. Gladu with the quotes, and you responded by saying, “I am astounded that Mr. Gladu was surprised, because when he told me about it, I was with my chief of staff”, and it went on.

You actually referenced the fact that Mr. Gladu had said the things that Pierre had quoted him as saying, without Pierre even having credited him with the statement. I find that kind of interesting. At some point you must have seen that testimony. Of course, he had testified two months earlier. It seems that there's a whole bunch of conflicting testimony. But I think what's more troubling than two people having conflicting testimony is one person conflicting in his own testimony.

Previously you said that your DM, Mr. Gladu, who had previously testified that he approved of the move, told you the move would cost $1 million and upset some employees, and you said, “I asked him whether he wanted me to do something about it. I did not understand why he was telling me this.”

If you didn't understand why he was telling you that, why didn't you just ask him to clarify what he was recommending instead of writing a letter to the public works minister to stay at Place Victoria?

[Claude Drouin]

I admitted it, it was my mistake. I'd like to respond to the point raised by the member, Mr. Chairman.

As Mr. Poilievre mentioned what the deputy minister had said, of course I was aware of it. I told him I was surprised to hear that Mr. Gladu had been surprised to hear that, and we had discussed the matter together. That is why I had mentioned it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But Mr. Poilievre never actually even referred to Mr. Gladu's name when he read the testimony into the record, yet you knew it was Mr. Gladu who had said it.

In previous testimony you said that you asked Public Works for a “verification” based on your deputy minister stating that the move would cost $1 million and that Place Bonaventure was a concrete building with a train running below it. Your letter to Minister Boudria does not mention any of those reasons, only that you wished to remain in a “prestige” address.

Why the discrepancy?

[Claude Drouin]

Because I'd had a phone conversation with him. I shared my concerns with him and he told me to send him a written request, in a transparent way, and that he would look into it. That is what was done and what I had understood from Deputy Minister Cochrane when she testified before the committee.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So you said that you only wrote to get a verification--that was what you said in your testimony, only a verification--but the letter clearly states, at the end of its two paragraphs, “Consequently, I would ask you to sign a new lease with Place Victoria, if possible.”

Is that what you consider a verification?

[Claude Drouin]

Yes, the words “if possible” indicate that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

You do consider that a verification? You actually asked him, “...I would ask you to sign a new lease with Place Victoria, if possible”.

[Claude Drouin]

And given the telephone conversation we had had before hand.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

I'm interested in the cost of the move. It's more of a comment than a question. You keep referring to this $1 million that you saved. Do you think, if someone else were to move into Place Bonaventure and take up that space, they would have incurred zero costs for moving? Would the costs of moving not have been the same regardless of who had to move?

[Claude Drouin]

No. It is the deputy minister who told me about the costs. It was mentioned in the testimony. For over 30 years we had been in the same place and there had only been one call for tenders. On all other occasions, it had been done by mutual agreement. If a move could be avoided, there would be cost savings, and if officials from other departments were to move to Place Bonaventure, it would not have involved additional costs.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The taxpayer would still have paid $1 million or more for someone to move into that space. That's the point I'm trying to make. The taxpayer did not save a million dollars because of your decision not to move.

Mr. Boudria, in a bidding process, is it regular practice for you to go through the whole process, finish the process, have one winner, sign a contract with that winner, and then go back and offer the fourth-place bidder, or any bidder down the line, the opportunity to rebid based on all the information having been made public? Is that a normal process? Is that fair?

[Don Boudria]

I don't believe that a contract was signed with the winner before I received the letter in question. That occurred long afterwards.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The contract at Place Bonaventure was signed after the contract with Place Victoria was renewed. Is that what you're saying?

[Don Boudria]

No. I'm referring to the time when I was the minister. Beyond that, it's not for me to say.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm just asking based on your experience as a minister.

[Don Boudria]

Sir, with respect, I was in elected office for 30 years and was Minister of Public Works for four months. If one wants to call that vast experience at Public Works, well, fine, but I don't think it is. During the brief period I was there, I received a letter from a colleague asking me to look into something. I passed it on to my department, and a few weeks later I wasn't the minister any more, and I never saw the answer.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

When you were the minister, would you have considered it normal practice to allow a rebid by a fourth-place bidder based on all the information from the previous bid, which had been made public?

[Don Boudria]

It didn't happen to me, as far as I know of, while I was there, but then again, I was there only briefly.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Your experience is definitely showing right now in answering this question.

Based on your experience, would you have considered that to be acceptable practice, yes or no?

[Don Boudria]

It depends on the circumstances.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In this circumstance, would you...?

[Don Boudria]

I didn't receive the answer in reference to this circumstance. I'm unable to arrive at a conclusion on information I did not see.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Fair enough.

Mr. Drouin, I want to give you another opportunity to explain some of these contradictions we've seen. It's interesting, when we compare your letter to your testimony several years later and then compare that to your testimony today, how much the story has changed. I think we've seen examples of that. I want to give you another opportunity to state the reason why you suggested that this decision be overruled.

[Claude Drouin]

Mr. Chairman, I have not changed anything. I've always said the same thing. I would have you note that when Public Works decided to negotiate the lease for Place Victoria, it believed other officials who needed to move would go there and that it would cost nothing more. Unfortunately, and I don't know why this is, there were some delays and that is what involved costs. Otherwise, it would have cost nothing. That is what I understood of the testimony. I have not changed anything to my statements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Merci, Monsieur Drouin.

That, colleagues, concludes the round. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Boudria, for your attendance here today, and you, Monsieur Drouin, for coming here today from your home province of Quebec. Thank you very much.

Mr. Fitzpatrick has a point of inquiry, but if the witnesses want to leave, you're welcome to. Again, thank you very much.