Government Operations Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, the first amendment made was actually to cancel the pre-bidders' conference, and in the language you strongly recommend that all bidders attend the pre-bidders' conference so that they can get a grasp of the project. Three days before the bidders' conference, it was cancelled. That's what we call amendment number one in this category. It's my first example of the extraordinary lengths it seems you went to, to favour Sauvé.

The second amendment was in fact the extension of one week. So the bid was supposed to close on the 21st of September. On September 18 you extended it by one week, and then on the very date it was to have closed, on the 21st, you moved your third amendment, which in fact was the real deal-maker for Sauvé, because that deleted sections 5 through 10 of all the pre-qualification specifications for the restorative iron work, for the masonry sculptural carvers, for the lightning protection, for the copper roofs—all of those technical things that no major general has, except for Sauvé.

I have worked for PCL. They don't have a lightning protection division. They don't have a restorative iron work division. EllisDon doesn't have those. So the best contractors in the world were shut out of this contest, essentially, by giving a clear advantage to the one guy who paid $140,000 to a lobbyist.

You guys are all saying you had nothing to do with it. But somebody certainly did in custom writing this thing so that there was only one logical conclusion and one logical contractor this job should go to. If it wasn't you, it was higher up than you. I have flashbacks of Chuck Guité sitting in that same chair, denying any political interference whatsoever in the allocation of his Public Works contracts. That turned out to be a fig, fat lie.

Somebody here is pulling our chain, to the great disadvantage of not only the Canadian taxpayer, who now has to mop up this mess with even more expense, but also to probably the most prestigious architectural restoration in North America, which is going on right underneath our noses and is being bungled in a monumental way. Maybe part of the problem is that there are four of you guys sitting here. Maybe Public Works is just so gargantuan that nobody can reasonably control the restoration of the parliamentary precinct. That's a question for another day.

I want to know specifically, in regard to the extension of the contract to accommodate Sauvé, how can any independent observer not connect the dots here and conclude that this contract was custom-crafted to suit the one guy who paid his tithe and bought his way onto that pre-qualification bidders' list?

[Tom Ring]

Mr. Chairman, there are probably many questions I could respond to there, but perhaps I could address myself specifically with respect to the requirements. As I've said quite clearly, amendment 3(b), in fact, did not favour LM Sauvé; it disadvantaged LM Sauvé. The record on that is absolutely clear.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I challenge that, sir.

[Tom Ring]

I could ask my colleague to speak to the question of why the bidders' conference was postponed.

As the member quite rightly points out, there were four amendments to the solicitation. These are not uncommon. I would address myself to the extension of one week, which was included because in fact there had been changes, there had been amendments—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Because you had to accommodate Mr. Sauvé. That answers my question, sir.

[Tom Ring]

And in order to be fair to all the other competitors, we publicly posted those changes on MERX, and received, as I said, no questions or comments with respect to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Ring.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is clear to us that some of the changes were to the advantage of LM Sauvé. The officials testifying before us today say that no sleight of hand happened in their offices. So it happened at ministerial level. We are now looking at an issue of ministerial responsibility.

I listened carefully to what was said earlier. Mr. Leclerc said that it raised a number of red flags. But the company still won the contract, and it is now bankrupt. You tell us this morning and that maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but it was not able to fulfill the contract. This is mind-boggling.

Under those circumstances, completing the contract falls back into the lap of the insurance company. According to Mr. Mongeau, Public Works has no contractual link with the people who have been entrusted with the work because L'UNIQUE General Insurance is dealing with them.

Is that the trick? You move guys off the construction site, you hand the work over to the insurance company, which turns around and deals with guys it has done business with before. Is that the way contracts are normally handled at Public Works?

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau]

Thank you for your question.

Mr. Chair, for all contracts dealing with construction projects, we look for guarantees. One of the most effective is a bonding company. That guarantees the government that, if a problem occurs as the project is being designed or implemented, and if the contractor is no longer able to finish the work, we can turn to the bonding company and ask them to get the work finished. That is the best guarantee we can have.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are not fooled by that. We get the trick. The insurance company deals with anyone it wants. There has been talk of investigations by the RCMP and CSIS and so on, looking into whether any collusion has taken place or not. I do not know if you follow the news, but there are serious allegations of collusion in the construction industry. If L'UNIQUE General Insurance is dealing with a company that raises very serious questions of that nature, you can do nothing about it.

Anyway, one thing is clear. This is not about officials from Public Works, it is about the minister of Bumbling Works who never gets out of his chair. He is the one who should be here today. Clearly, this is about ministerial responsibility. That is the level at which the decisions were made. The people who testified today about the integrity of the system they manage tell us that we should look at the political side. That is exactly what we're going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There are approximately 45 seconds left, if either of you wishes to respond.

[Pierre-Marc Mongeau]

That is not a question. I am not in a position to comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Regan, Mr. Coderre, for five minutes, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, you've indicated this process was normal. Is it normal to have the RCMP investigate a contract?

[Tom Ring]

Thank you for the question.

Again, some context. We manage 60,000 contracts and amendments per year. If in fact we are 99.9% perfect, there are still 600 contracts annually where there are difficulties and challenges. We have processes and procedures in place for when those circumstances arise. This is not the first time, obviously, that there has been an investigation of a contract. Is it normal process? No. Is it unheard of? No, it is not.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

What is the RCMP investigating?

[Tom Ring]

Sir, I can't answer that. You'd have to address those questions to the RCMP.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

You've indicated that there was an internal review with no official contact. Has the RCMP asked for phone records?

[Tom Ring]

You'd have to address your questions to the RCMP, sir. I don't have that information.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Ring, what was your job in September of 2007?

[Tom Ring]

In 2007 I was employed at the Department of National Defence.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Who was in the job you now hold at that time?

[Tom Ring]

I believe the name of the individual was Liliane Saint Pierre. She retired in January of this past year, and I assumed the position at that time.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

My colleague, Mr. Coderre, has some questions.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

So, Mr. Chair, we can see that there may be two magic tricks here. First, the changes that resulted in more time being given to LM Sauvé and the last change, a week later, that also made sure that they would be the low bidder.

Then we find out that there is no link with L'UNIQUE General Insurance. They can do what they want and hire whom they want. And because they can hire whom they want, money can just disappear in the process.

I would like to know whether, in Minister Fortier's time, Bernard Côté, as his assistant, asked the person responsible at the time any questions at all about restoration contracts on Parliament Hill.