Evidence of meeting #34 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I would like at this time to call the meeting to order and want to extend to everyone here, witnesses, people in the gallery, and members, a very warm welcome. Bienvenue à tous.
I would welcome Pablo Rodriguez, who, I understand, is a new member to the committee. Welcome, Pablo. No speeches by new members.
We have another new member. Do you want to introduce her?
Madam.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay.
There are a couple of things I want to say before we start. First of all, as this is the third meeting on this particular issue, there will be no opening statements. Again, I want to remind members that the issue before the committee is whether or not government contracting policies have been respected, and hence, by extension, whether or not taxpayers got good value for their expenditure dollar.
We'd like to conclude this issue today. I would urge members to keep their questions short and relevant. I would urge all witnesses to keep their answers very brief and to the point. This committee has no patience for long, rambling, irrelevant answers.
There's one other point I want to bring out to the members of the committee and to the interested public. This is a very significant time for the committee. Going back, there's been a recommendation before different governments, starting with the Glassco commission and the Lambert commission, that deputy ministers become accounting officers before Parliament and, by extension, this committee. This committee made that recommendation in 2004. It was followed up by the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Gomery in his report tabled in February of last year. It was followed up subsequently by the government in a provision in the Federal Accountability Act and it became law on January 1 of this year.
You, Mr. Marshall, are the first person to appear as an accounting officer before Parliament. So I want to say that it's a very significant item and I want to congratulate you. I'm not sure you're aware of that, but congratulations.
3:35 p.m.
David Marshall Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
No. Thank you. It's a chance to make history.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
If there's nothing else preliminary, we're going to go right to the witness list.
The Liberal Party, eight minutes, Mr. Proulx.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I have an opening statement by the Auditor General.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The Auditor General has given a short opening statement. Other witnesses asked to give other opening statements. This is the third time we've had the meeting. I have no problem if you want to do that, make an exception for the Auditor General.
Mrs. Fraser, I know it's very brief if you want to make those comments, but I think we'll limit it at that.
3:35 p.m.
Sheila Fraser Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It's really up to the committee, Mr. Chair. There were just a couple of points of clarification that we wanted to make before the meeting began, but, as you said, the statement's very short, so if members want to dispense with the reading of it, I'm....
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I think under the circumstances it would probably be best if we heard it from you. It is very brief.
3:35 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We thank you for this opportunity to clarify certain of the issues from chapter 5 of our November 2006 report. The audit raised two primary issues. The first is that fairness in contracting requires that business volumes set out in the request for proposal be accurate and that all bidders have equal access to the correct information. The government agrees with this view. As committee members will recall, departments have acknowledged that they now know that the business volumes set out in the request for proposal were not correct.
The second issue is the clarity of the terms and conditions of the contract. Our position on this is clear. The contract states that third-party services will be paid according to the ceiling rate established in the contract. In the case of property management services, the ceiling rate in the contract is zero percent, and the government has agreed with our interpretation.
The basis of payment set out in the contract does not distinguish between third-party services that are part of core funding and/or the third-party service funded from an employee's personal envelope. The contract is clear—“ceiling prices will apply for all services”. As committee members will recall from the last hearing, the government has agreed with this interpretation.
At this time, departments should take steps to ensure that contract terms are respected.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement, and we would be pleased to answer your committee's questions. Thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I would like a clarification from you, but perhaps you have already given it. Today's meeting will last three hours. Will we be hearing witnesses during all of that time?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We have three hours scheduled for this meeting. We don't have to use the three hours, but that is what we have scheduled.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I would like to know how you are going to decide on the number of turns. How many will there be?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It's up to the committee, but I propose that the first round be eight minutes each and the second round be five minutes each. That usually takes an hour and 45 minutes. Then if we go to a third round it will be five minutes each.
Again, I point out that we don't have to use the three hours, but we do have three hours scheduled, with the hope that the issue will be concluded at this meeting.
Mr. Williams.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm not a fan of three-hour meetings, but if we are having a three-hour meeting I think there's enough time for everybody to have eight minutes each.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
That's certainly an option available to the committee. You're right that there would be enough time to do it.
Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Christopherson.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sometimes it's beneficial to hear a line of questioning from somebody else that ties into something you were thinking, and then you get a chance to speak. But this way you get eight minutes once, and no matter what comes up you're sort of done for the day.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
If we have eight minutes each all around, that will take about two hours. Then, under your eminent leadership, perhaps we can have kind of a round-table question-and-answer period.
David's point is well taken, but we can leave it to the chair to adjudicate so it's fair and reasonable to all, kind of an open-ended free discussion period.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In any event, we should avoid limiting ourselves. I agree entirely that we should reserve a time period at the end of the meeting in case there are questions remaining. If some members of the committee still have questions after the two eight-minute turns you have suggested, we will see what we want to do at that point.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We'll proceed on that basis. In the interest of fairness, we normally go back to the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for another round of five minutes, just so we keep it somewhat balanced.
Mr. Proulx.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to welcome all of our witnesses, some of whom we've already met, some of whom we haven't. I want to wish them a happy 2007.
We are privileged today to have Mr. Marshall, who has accepted our invitation. I understand that Mr. Bennett, for personal reasons and business commitments, could not attend, and Mr. Marshall has been sent to meet with us and give us some explanations. There are four or more new members around the table today, so we're going to do a little exercise together, Mr. Marshall, if you will allow me.
We've received a copy of the investigative report on a complaint of improprieties. Mind you, it's very difficult to read because some pages have been almost completely scratched out, with only the number of the page remaining. I understand that.
My understanding from witnesses at previous sessions is that you were the authority who decided to cancel one of the contracts. Let's just go back together for a second to identify the different contracts.
Number one would be the pilot project. Number two would be the one that was cancelled. Number three would be the one that was awarded after number two was cancelled.
Is that right?
