Public Accounts committee  It's still a big population.

Public Accounts committee  No, it isn't. And the data we currently have demonstrates that those numbers didn't hold up. But it was a predictive model, and it's turned out to be incorrect.

Public Accounts committee  Just as a point of clarification, what I said earlier is that the pilot covered all the CF, all forces, all military staff, all RCMP, GIC appointees, and senior government personnel at the EX level. It did not include the people who are non-executive members of the Public Service of Canada--the heavy half of the public service.

Public Accounts committee  That means 0.22% availed themselves of property management services via Royal LePage relocation services. We were unaware of the number of people who would have availed themselves of property management services and not reported that to Royal LePage, because they weren't obliged to.

Public Accounts committee  Hindsight is 20/20. We look at it now, and it looks as though those numbers were off. But the sense was that the program hadn't been given the promotion that it should have been given to encourage people, and that—

Public Accounts committee  I can't speculate about that. It's a good question, but I can't speculate and answer it.

Public Accounts committee  Those would be transferees, yes.

Public Accounts committee  At the destination.

Public Accounts committee  Yes, at the destination.

Public Accounts committee  We didn't have that data.

Public Accounts committee  Okay.

Public Accounts committee  I see where you're going, but that wasn't the logic the interdepartmental working group adopted. Their logic was just the reverse: if 40% bought homes at the destination end, those are the people who probably didn't own homes at the originating end. You can question that logic, but that was the logic used by that group.

Public Accounts committee  No. I assume they would be eligible for one.

Public Accounts committee  Actually, it's a good question. I'll get that answered and get back to you. I don't actually have the answer to that question. I don't know of any situation where that has happened. It's quite possible, but we'll get that clarified and get that information to the committee as quickly as we can.

Public Accounts committee  I understand in 1998 there was a national joint council policy, where the bargaining agents and government got together. In fact, part of the reason the goal was put in place was because we had about a three-year backlog of relocation-related grievances. People were unhappy with essentially being transferred to another place and then claiming expenses that were disallowed for whatever reason.