Evidence of meeting #109 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was company.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You said earlier that the $13.9-million contract did not require document safeguarding capability. How do you know this?
Partner, GC Strategies
It's based on past testimony. I noticed yesterday that—
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Referring to the $13.9-million contract, the Office of the Procurement Ombud stated:
The contract stated “the Contractor must, at all times during the performance of the Contract, hold a valid Designated Organization Screening (DOS) with approved Document Safeguarding at the level of Protected B.”
Did your company hold that security clearance—
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—at the time when it was signed?
Why did you say earlier that the contract didn't require document safeguarding when in fact it did?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I don't think so. This is in the contract itself. This is the Office of the Procurement Ombud citing the contract.
These are the words from the report:
The contract stated “the Contractor must, at all times during the performance of the Contract, hold...approved Document Safeguarding at the level of Protected B.”
I guess what's shocking, Mr. Anthony, is that you're the chief security officer and this is a security issue and we're talking about matters of national security, and yet you weren't familiar with the requirements of the contract at the time when your partner signed it.
It comes back to my earlier question about how you actually carry out your responsibilities as a chief security officer or whether this is just a title that you guys created. You divvied up the titles and you became chief security officer, but you don't actually do any chief security officer things.
I'm struggling to understand how you failed to provide this basic level of oversight—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's your time, Mr. Bachrach. We'll have to allow a bit of time for a response from Mr. Anthony.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks very much.
We'll have Mr. Genuis for five minutes. Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Anthony, you really had me at “I didn't read the Auditor General's report.” This report was tabled more than a month ago. Your company has faced grievous consequences, which you have described, because of this report. You've been required to testify, in large part because of the findings in this report, and this report is feeding into an RCMP investigation that could result in criminal charges against your long-term business partner and against you.
Mr. Anthony, this report is merely 36 pages. At no point did you think that maybe you should read this thing?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Anthony, why are you lying to this committee?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You did, sir.
What do you think you have to gain by claiming that you didn't read the Auditor General's report?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Why are you making this claim when it's clearly not true?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Sir, how much time did you spend preparing for this hearing today?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Roughly, though, how much time did you spend preparing for this hearing?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay.
You didn't think, as part of that preparation, that you should read the Auditor General's report?