Government Operations Committee on June 8th, 2006

[Michael Fortier]

Yes.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Essentially what will that person analyze?

[Michael Fortier]

I hope we'll start with Ms. Fraser's 2003 report. As for the amounts allocated for these kinds of surveys by the Government of Canada, they totalled $6 million or $7 million in 1993, but rose to $28 million in 2002 or 2003. So they quadrupled. That's a major increase. It's not so much the amount, but the way in which the services of these polling firms have been retained that causes a problem.

As you know, no written report was provided in some cases. Mr. Alghabra spoke earlier about fairness and the need to contact a larger number of persons. From what I understand, in a number of cases, calls to tender were not made. Someone was simply selected. Even worse, that person's report wasn't even submitted.

We want to know what happened. I also hope that this person will advise us about the future. I want that person to tell us how the government should proceed when it conducts surveys. So that person will make recommendations to the government in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaking more generally, in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, obviously made a number of recommendations in an effort to help the government put in place practices that would prevent this kind of problem in the future. I appreciate there are actions you are taking from the get-go to try to achieve that as well.

Can you tell us which of the Auditor General's recommendations you have trouble with or do not intend to implement because you disagree with them? You talked about leasing and purchasing, but can you tell us which of her recommendations you don't intend to follow up on?

[Michael Fortier]

The department answered and replied to each one of her observations and recommendations. What I said earlier about leasing versus purchasing, she didn't disagree with me. What she had said, you'll recall, is that there was one particular instance when we renewed a five-year lease so many times that had we bought it on day one, we would have saved taxpayers a lot of money. What I told her is that it comes with responsibilities. If you want us to own more assets, then collectively we have to conduct ourselves accordingly. In that sense, I don't disagree with her. I think every single thing she noticed, I don't disagree with, because each is an observation.

If I'm allowed to comment on one—which I'm sure Madame Marleau noticed when she was in my position a few years ago—it is that the average length of a lease is way too short. Given our creditworthiness, we should be signing longer-term leases. Signing five-year leases and then renewing them one year at a time for an extra seven years is, frankly, not very good for taxpayers; it's not very good management.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's something you're agreeing with, but I'm wondering if there are areas where she had recommended change but you do not intend to act, or you don't think it was the right recommendation.

[Michael Fortier]

No, no, no, I just thought I'd throw that one in, because it's an important one and pretty significant.

Mr. McGrath has a plan to bring the average lease term longer than five years, and we need to work with the other departments. What happens, Ms. Nash, is that we get a department saying they want to move to the corner of Maple and First Avenue in whatever city, but they only want a lease for three years, because they've got another 200 employees at the corner of First and Oak Street and they might want to put them together. So we can't get these people to commit for longer, but we will from now on. I've already put a stop to a few of these things that have come across my desk, and I've told them to go back to the department, as we've not agreed to renew the lease.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

In addition to the leases, and procurement in general, are there any recommendations that the Auditor General made that you felt you were not going to act on?

[Michael Fortier]

No.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So you basically have decided that you will act on all her recommendations.

[Michael Fortier]

Those that dealt with my department, absolutely.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. Excellent.

[Michael Fortier]

I'm new at this, so I want to make sure I have it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It's okay, it's not a court of law.

In terms of the procurement auditor--you've already answered some of this--can you tell us how you anticipate the procurement auditor working with the Auditor General, or are they separate silos?

[Michael Fortier]

They're very separate. The procurement auditor will be working within Public Works, and Mrs. Fraser, obviously, works outside Public Works. They have very, very different functions.

As I was telling Madame Thibault, Madame Fraser will still conduct reviews of our department, with or without a procurement auditor--that's for sure.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The procurement auditor's report will be tabled in Parliament for review.

[Michael Fortier]

Yes.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have one last question, about the independent adviser who will be reporting on procurement practices for public opinion research. You say that you will soon be appointing this person to conduct this review. Will this be an ongoing review, instead of in six months they'll report back and then their work is finished?

[Michael Fortier]

Correct.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

There are an enormous number of departments and/or branches involved with Public Works. I see a few of them here, in particular, project requirements, procurement strategies, solicitations, contract approval awards, contract payments. There seems to be a never-ending.... There are a lot of responsibilities. Yet in the investigation of the sponsorship scandal by the Auditor General, it was noted that all these responsibilities for all these departments were rolled under one position. In other words, instead of having a number of steps and a number of people responsible for decisions, they were all rolled under one, which was the director of communications services branch.

I'm wondering how this was allowed to happen. Instead of having all these checks and balances by so many people, along with all the different departments, it was rolled into one person and/or one department's responsibility to override all the other responsibilities from all the other departments. So I'd like to know how that happened and who the executive director of the communications coordination system was at that time.

[David Marshall]

Madam Chair, this is obviously a very sore subject at Public Works. It should not have happened, as you've described. It happened of course for a specific program only, which is what we know as the sponsorship program. At the time, there was various rationale for doing it. There's a huge record of different witnesses explaining it. You could summarize it as the urgency of the situation, the need for speed and so on, which clearly has been proven to have been an unwise move.

Today, of course, that is not the case at Public Works. There is very, very strict attention to the separation of all these functions.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Do you recall who was the executive communications director at that time?