Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let me just finish the question, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Hurry up. I'll give you more time.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

What kind of operation are you running over there when you're doing informal reviews and things are slipping down through the cracks, and so on? You are the national police force, so we expect it to be done according to the rules. So what's this informal bit all about?

[Alain Séguin]

We responded to the Auditor General. We agree with the concerns raised, and in fact we are developing guidelines that are more—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I ask what this informal bit is all about. Is this the way they do business? I don't need to get guidelines in the future. I want to know why this was the case.

[Alain Séguin]

Why were they informal? It specifically relates to the Pacific region. The feeling was that because of the volume—and there are a lot of transactions in the Pacific region—they felt that using a “less than statistical” risk-based approach was appropriate. We don't feel it's appropriate, and we're therefore making corrections.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We all want to hear from Mr. Christopherson now. We're anxiously waiting for him.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't know about that, but I do have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all.

You answered the question, Mr. Bennett, and it was just a factual, historical one, in that Minister Scott Brison and Mr. Marshall were the minister and deputy respectively for the third contract. Since we're doing it one, two , three, for the first two, who would have been the deputy and the minister?

[Ian Bennett]

I don't have that information off the top of my head. We can easily check, though.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You'll bring that to the next meeting, then, when you've had a chance to think about it?

[Ian Bennett]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that.

Also, Admiral, I just wanted to clarify something. Based on Mr. Williams' questions, I understand that your first concern is for your members. That's what we want to hear from our senior command officers. But we also do want you to address the issue of where that money is going to come from. If you're not going to go after LePage for it, I'd like some explanation as to why not. That's the request.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

I understand your concern.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good. I just want to be clear that you're clear about what we're asking for. In terms of what we get back, we'll see.

[RAdm Tyrone Pile]

I will get back to you. I just want to be certain of the legal mechanisms.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. I just want it to be crystal clear that we're all crystal clear.

The crux of this matter, as I understand it, has a lot of different pieces attached. Because there was an inherent unfairness, according to the Auditor General and according to the person at the company that wasn't the bid winner, and because information was wrong, there wasn't an actual fair bidding process. That does get into current times in terms of what the government's going to do about this situation, but we'll leave that aside and deal with it in another place.

The first question would be, in your opinion—and I'd like the Auditor General to respond, because it picks up on where one of the other members left off—isn't a $50-million difference in two bids something that would raise an eyebrow, in that somebody is either a super business person who has found a way to make money out of thin air; or that there's something wrong here, that there's an advantage somewhere; or that somebody doesn't have the capabilities to provide what they're saying for that amount? Isn't that a big enough amount of money between two credible bidders to have somebody raise an eyebrow and say, “Wait a minute. These are two credible people, so these things should be a few million apart, not tens of millions.”

[Ian Bennett]

Mr. Chair, again I go back to two things, quickly. Number one, in a number of different areas, goods, and services, suppliers bid zero. I take the point that it was a very significant difference between the zero and the price in other bids, but second-judging that business intelligence as to why they would bid zero puts Public Works and Government Services on a very slippery slope.

The second point is that there is jurisprudence in terms of our ability to compare one bid to another. There have been cases before the CITT. Looking at those, did the department have the latitude to really compare one bid to another and do the assessments? In retrospect, the Auditor General has said that in looking at all factors and all things combined, there should have been flags, and we take that point.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But we can't just let it go at that. That's not good enough, I'm afraid. To say to you that a bidder chooses to put zero and therefore that's up to them, it's a business decision.... If somebody bid on a new bridge and they put zero for concrete, somebody ought to be saying “Wait a minute. How the heck can they do that and still manage to do the job in a way that's acceptable?” So let me get into a little more detail on this.

And by the way, I realize it has to be tweaked with legal people, but one other thing I'd like to ask you for is a one-pager on that apparent conflict of interest, what the circumstances were, and what was found out. I don't need names or an indication, but there's nothing wrong with telling us what the circumstances were. If you decide not to respond, then send a letter in saying that and we'll deal with it. But I'd like to at least get a précis on what happened there, because I don't know.

On the second one, there were complaints, apparently. You have stated that you didn't know these huge problems were there until the Auditor General found them, yet the bidders commented on both aspects: the inaccuracy of the 60% and 40% in the template of the RFP, but also wanting to know what the actual volume numbers were. The answer came back that the numbers were not available, but we're going to deal with that.

[Ian Bennett]

Again I simply say to the committee, Mr. Chair, that there were 289 questions asked. There were two questions with respect to the question that is being raised. In terms of whether there were flags going up when you look at that type of scenario, there were not, because all 289 questions were important.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, but let me ask you a question. If a complaint comes in—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Your time has expired. Sorry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then we shall return to this interesting subject on another day.

I thank you all very much for your answers.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

They're very good questions, with very good commentary, but we have to move on.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, my watch says it's about 5:35. According to my records, we always wrap up at 5:30. In fact, I have here the new schedule for next year, 2007, which says committee meetings run for two hours and then wrap up at 5:30 at night and so on.

Some people have private members' bills in the House and other things. I raised this issue a couple of weeks ago that committee meetings should start on time, at 3:30, and finish on time, at 5:30. We have to leave. What's the scoop?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

There was an informal understanding with the chair that we were going to run to 5:38, which is in about two minutes from now. What's the wish of the committee?

Ms. Ratansi was on the list, and she was going to share her time with Borys. Why don't we just let that transpire, and then we can move on?