Government Operations Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[Michael Fortier]

Yes, and I told the Senate that yesterday or the day before; Mr. Wrzesnewskyj referred to this earlier. Some clauses in the C-17 contract stipulate that the transaction will be done in such a way as to have no impact on the Government of Canada in relation to ITAR. So, obviously, with regard to other acquisitions, be it for Hercules or helicopters, we want the contract to include the same provisions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Okay. If I understand correctly, these provisions would apply, so ITAR would not apply to C-17s or Hercules or Chinooks or various aircraft.

[Michael Fortier]

You are talking about a contract that has not yet been negotiated.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I presume that you will not violate your own charter and that you will not sign a contract...

[Michael Fortier]

Not only is that true, but I have told my people that, when it comes to purchasing Boeing CH-47s, among others, we should use the contract we have just negotiated as a basis and move forward, not backward.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Okay.

[Michael Fortier]

I am not just talking about ITAR conditions but other conditions related to purchasing.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In the short time I have remaining, I want to quickly talk about another issue: the contract on the relocation of federal employees, particularly National Defence and the RCMP employees. No doubt, you remember the contract awarded to Royal LePage. There was a call for tenders, which was then cancelled, and then followed by a new one.

I discussed this, quite recently—maybe two weeks ago—with the Auditor General, who told me that there had been serious problems related to the call for tenders and that this contract had not been awarded in due form. Nonetheless, you personally decided to maintain the contract and to look no further, without any discussion whatsoever.

I asked the Auditor General, at that time, whether she was aware of any ministers who ignored her recommendations. She told me this was a rare occurrence.

[Michael Fortier]

First, I don't recall the Auditor General saying in her report that she suggested we cancel the contract. When you say that you spoke to her in private and that I did not follow her advice, what advice are you referring to?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No, I did not speak to her in private. Without any discussion, you stood up and immediately said that there was nothing more to talk about, that it was fine, that we should forget this and that the contract was on.

[Michael Fortier]

Where did I stand up, Mr. Rodriguez?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That is what you said, Mr. Fortier.

[Michael Fortier]

But to whom?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

You said publicly that this was a good contract and that it was on.

[Michael Fortier]

I think that I gave the same answer as I am giving here. First, you make it sound as if the Auditor General and I disagree. She never said that this contract should be cancelled. So, I think that she and I have drawn the same conclusion.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Obviously not, since she has put the ball back in your court. She says that it is not her decision to make. She conducted an assessment, noted the facts and she said that there seemed to be some serious problems associated with this call for tenders.

[Michael Fortier]

I know that another committee heard from a number of witnesses. One of the parties has served us with a notice of intent to sue the government. So, I do not want to really comment on the contract or the circumstances.

I can tell you that I stand by my initial position, which is to uphold the contract, which will end, as you know, in less than 24 months, until it expires and to renew it...

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Your time is up, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the team for being here today.

I want to follow up on military procurement. You mention on page 3 that you're responsible for everything from aircraft to uniforms. Uniforms obviously have a rather limited life. How frequently would a tender for something like that be reissued, and would companies that haven't had the opportunity to be suppliers have equal access to those kinds of contacts?

[Michael Fortier]

That's a technical question. I guess we'll replace the uniforms when their shelf life is over. But on the ability of small suppliers and a larger universe of suppliers to make--

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I wasn't asking how long the uniforms would last. How frequently would the tendering process be entered into with a company? Let's say a company signs a contract for x number of years. When would that terminate, on average? Is it a long term?

[David Marshall]

No. It's usually a three-year kind of thing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

That's all I wanted.

On greening, you mentioned on page 1 of your remarks that it's everything from definition to purchase, use, and ultimately disposal. Could you expand a bit on your policy as it relates to disposal? I think garbage, landfill, and all of these things are issues that all Canadians are concerned about. I wonder if you could comment about that briefly.

[Margaret Kenny, Director General, Office of Greening Government Operations, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

The policy itself spans the whole procurement process, right from planning how many printers you need per 10 people, for example. Disposal would also be covered.

On disposal, you can imagine that in standing offers for large pieces of equipment there is a take-back of the materials used to package the products. That's certainly the case in some of the upcoming requests for standing offers for computer equipment. It's that kind of thing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned the Sydney tar ponds. Some news reports have questioned the technology there. I wonder if you can give us examples of where this technology has been used in other jurisdictions, the kind of timeframe in which it's been used, and the success rate it's had.