That could be too.
Evidence of meeting #24 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 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 move.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So he should have had it before he came the first time even.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
And Mr. Drouin was here in June, so he should have had that.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
He probably should have.
The clerk is not aware, because he wasn't the clerk at that time, but I think you can make the assumption that probably he would have had it.
Mr. Christopherson, you have eight minutes.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you both for coming back.
Mr. Boudria, the question was already asked by Mr. Sweet, but it's understood, first, that many people don't like change. They don't necessarily want to move, especially if they've been somewhere for a long time.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Exactly. It's human nature. Regarding inefficiencies, any time you move, you're going to disrupt work for some period of time while you symbolically unplug and then replug in--
12:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, presumably that is the case. In terms of costs, there are going to be costs. We've already acknowledged that's the case.
I would assume that only by exception would you, as a minister, believe that anyone or any entity within your ministry would not be up to the gold standard that we all expect and get from public servants, meaning that for the most part you're very proud of the people for whom you were the minister and the department for which you were responsible. It's not a trick question. I'm just trying to lay the groundwork here.
In other words, you have faith in the department that they do the job that's asked of them.
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
Oh, yes. My deputy minister at the time, Madame Cochrane, was absolutely fantastic. There's no doubt about that. And that's why when I received a letter from a colleague I sent it to her for processing, and then, as I indicated, I left.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I agree with you: there's no doubt. Thanks, Mr. Boudria.
So if they do the job, they would assume and I would assume that when the staff tell us and the Auditor General that they've reviewed the current situation in which the lease is expiring, when they come back and say there's not a deal that can be done here based on future needs for the department, based on costs, and that they can't stay here and they're recommending they go somewhere else.... Would you assume also that they've considered how much it costs to move, what the inefficiencies are, and how much it might upset people? Do you not think that would have been part of the initial review as to whether or not just staying where they were would have been the right thing to do, right from the get-go to save us all this money and time and effort? Would you not say that's a fair assumption--this is not a big one--that they would look at those things?
12:40 p.m.
As an Individual
It should be a fair assumption. Was it done in this case? Given that I wasn't there by the time the letter was answered, I cannot say whether it was in this particular transaction.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
To the best of my knowledge, the material here says it did happen.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm saying that the material here says it did happen, that there was sign-off and that the minister at the time said we'll move it to the next step.
This is the problem I had before. Because it cost $1 million to move and there was going to be a week of disruption and staff didn't want to move don't seem to be good enough reasons at the end of a process. I expect the professionals we pay on the Hill would have already done that, given that they already told us they looked at whether staying in situ was the right way to go.
It comes back to the motivation for all of this. You can appreciate that when we've had ministers' offices intervene--or stop or hold or review, whatever you want to call it--and it starts up again, and then we get another minister who comes along with this letter that upsets the whole thing, we start looking for why.
I am going to be very frank. For the longest time I was thinking that somebody with Place Victoria had a vested interest in this and that somebody got involved and turned it all around. That is what I thought at first--I really did. And that's why I was looking for pieces. But I have to admit, I haven't seen the evidence of that.
I'm beginning to be concerned that this was done because somebody--maybe this minister, maybe somebody else--didn't like moving and didn't want to make the move, period. They just didn't like it. Here's my evidence for that. There's no rationale for you, or anyone in your position, to agree with this minister, or anybody in that position, when the process has already been completed, done, finished.
I take a look, and what do we see all through here? First of all, Mr. Drouin's letter says “it is essential to find a building offering adequate space and a prestige address”. I didn't think too much about that at first, but then we go on.
I am reading from the June 13, 2007, Hansard. Mr. Drouin stated, “According to what Mr. Gladu told me, the deputy minister did not want to move. He was happy where he was at the time.” Also the same day, from Mr. Drouin, “The deputy minister explained his fears regarding the move...”.
This is Mr. Drouin again:
The deputy minister of the day, Mr. Gladu, had said that it was a concrete building and that trains ran underneath it, whereas theTour de la Bourse, at Place Victoria, had a glass facade.
I have one more. Mr. Drouin, this is you and your deputy:
We reviewed this together, and he mentioned that the employees were unhappy and that they did not want to move. Mr. Gladu told me why they didn't want to move. It was because the building was made of concrete and that ours had windows.
It is the only motivation I can find that has any evidence to support it.
My question to you, Mr. Boudria, and you can assume that you're under oath--
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, and you're an honest man. I believe that.
I'm asking whether you had any discussions with Mr. Drouin, his staff, your political staff, or any other staff about whether this building was good enough, nice enough, prestige enough, or were all the discussions only about matters that quite frankly your ministry had already looked into and said it doesn't warrant staying?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chair, there were no discussions. I received an initial phone call from the minister expressing an interest in reviewing this thing. I've asked for a letter.
There's something missing, by the way, in the English translation of the documentation that's before you. The letter was sent to me on April 22, and the date that the department received it is missing. If you go to the French text, you will see that the department only received it on the 23rd.
Where there is a bar code, if there is one on the letter.... The one I have has a bar code, “PWGSC”, and a date beside the bar code. That bar code indicates that my department only received it on the 23rd. The month after, I was no longer there. So even if the minister had wanted to make further representation--I am not saying whether that was good or bad--he wouldn't have had time to do it anyway, because I wasn't there.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But you had a discussion with him and you said to him, send me a letter. So you knew what it was the minister was concerned about. You've testified to that today. You didn't know whether it was by person or by phone, but you had a discussion with him and you said to him, send me a letter.
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
That's correct.
By the way, I didn't recall that until I came here today. Mr. Drouin and I discussed this just here in the room, and I didn't remember the genesis of why I had received a letter from him. I was reminded---
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I don't have a lot of time, but I don't want to be rude, sir--
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm sorry, but to answer the question directly, I was reminded that we had discussed it orally first and then I asked him for the letter. I didn't recall that I had asked for the letter.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So you're saying that you don't recall anything to do with the prestige of the buildings, the trains, the windows. You recall nothing at all of that discussion.