Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that. I'm going to push a little, though, because the Auditor General went out of her way in her report, Mr. Campbell, to state what I just repeated. She went so far as to say that she thought the cancelling of the 2002 contract was appropriate, even though money would have been spent. So, I'm sorry, but I've got to push again. In the view of the Auditor General, would we be preserving the integrity of the government's procurement process if we recommend to the government they cancel this and retender? Do you believe this would be consistent with the goals that were being sought in 2002?

[Ronnie Campbell]

Mr. Chairman, if the contract was awarded in another process through a fair and transparent manner, that would help preserve the integrity of the process.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is the crux of it, Chair, if ultimately the committee concludes that we believe the Auditor General—We've got two very stark and different opinions, very blatant, where the Auditor General has said this is not a fair and equitable process, period. The department, however, has said in black and white that they believe it is, flat out. It's the first time I've seen it. I'm told that it has happened in the past, but it's the first time I've seen anybody roll in, look the Auditor General right in the eye and say, no, you're wrong, we're right. Yet that's where we are. At some point, it seems to me, we're going to have to come to grips with this issue of the current contract if we're to give meaning to what we say about what happened in this little trip down fantasyland.

I want to ask you something, Mr. Atyeo. I don't want to get cross-fighting here, but Mr. Bélair has indicated in a couple of places that issues that have been raised aren't really issues that would affect the fairness of the competitive bid. In your opening statement you said you've got lots of information; you can back it all up. Unfortunately, you didn't get to table any of it. So I want to give you a chance now to take a moment to put on the table issues that you believe are key to why this was not a fair and equitable process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

[Inaudible--Editor]—the government point of view, the way the government handles it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, of course.

[Bruce Atyeo]

That's a big question. I will try to be as precise as possible. From the government's point of view.... The reason you're not getting any answers from Public Works as to why 7,200 files per year instead of 30,000, or whatever the number should have been, is that they didn't have the numbers. The obvious question is, then, why didn't they have the numbers? The numbers were available, as the Auditor General found out.

There isn't a relocation management company in this country or in North America that I'm aware of that couldn't produce those numbers with the push of a button, including Royal LePage, who apparently have a $24 million computer system specifically designed for the management of relocation files.

The reason you're getting blank stares is that there is no answer. They should have had that information. I would not accept the answer in our company that the information wasn't available. DND had the information; Treasury Board had the information; the RCMP had the information. For them to say they didn't have the information tells you that you have a serious problem somewhere in your processes and in the management of this program.

From a government point of view, you have to start looking there. There is no reason in the world why they shouldn't have had that information.

When you look at all the other things, the total weight of all of the coincidental and seemingly innocent things that happened—such as the close relationship between Mr. Bélair and the people who were working on the 2002 bid—

And you can say what you want, but the issue of going on a cruise in the Caribbean has nothing to do with who paid for it or who was there. The issue is that obviously Mr. Bélair and Ms. Douglas had a relationship outside of work that included socializing, to a level that their families vacationed together. Where I come from—and I've been on Caribbean cruises with groups of people myself—that makes for a pretty close relationship.

What happened in Ottawa the rest of the year? Did Ms. Douglas go over to Mr. Bélair's house for a barbecue on Saturday afternoon? I don't know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're looking at the government. This investigation has been done. But again, you have another minute.

[Bruce Atyeo]

Okay. My question on that one—and I said this is a big answer, and I'm giving you a couple of examples—is, why didn't the government react to the finding that there was this conflict of interest?

Public Works just sits there with a blank stare and says, “Well, they each paid their own way.” That's not the point. The point is whether there was any influence on the development of the RFP in 2002 and again in 2004, because as we've seen, basically the RFP was rolled from 2002 to 2004.

How much influence was exerted by the relationship between Mr. Bélair and Ms. Douglas and Mr. Pyett? I don't know, but I'm asking the question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I don't have much time left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ten seconds.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Let me just use that, then, to indicate to you, Chair, that my next two questions are directly to the Treasury Board, as a result of the statement of the Auditor General at the last meeting, but I can't put them because they're not here.

I still don't have an adequate answer as to why they're not here, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

So we have a tendering process where one party has an unfair advantage because they have been the provider of services, and you would assume that Public Works would want to level the playing field.

I'm just rehashing some of these things, but the Auditor General says Public Works subsequently communicated to all bidders that actual volumes were not available for the past years. She also states that Public Works' response based on representations from the Canadian Forces, the RCMP, and the Treasury Board Secretariat was that figures were not available. That's out of her report. And she also states that in developing the request for proposal for contracts, the project authority could have asked the incumbent service provider to provide statistics on actual business volumes. They found no evidence of such a request.

Well, that's pretty mind boggling, where that leads us. In last week's hearing, Mr. Goodfellow, when I asked you whether an existing relationship existed between individuals involved in the RFP--between Royal LePage and some of those individuals--you said that yes, there was, in the development of the RFP.

I now look at this table, and it's fascinating, because you have Treasury Board, DND, and the RCMP in box 1 for the “Provision of a detailed Statement of Work”, and then you have them again in box 9 for “Payment Requisitioning”. Yet last week we heard that you had a system whereby when submissions were made--for instance, in National Defence--within 24 hours payments flowed. There was a zero balance at the end of every 24 hours, and there was a backlog of 35,000 or 36,000. We have no idea what has been paid for.

You have an existing relationship. The people cutting the cheques, who are involved in moneys being paid to Royal LePage, are helping to structure a tender and are not willing to provide Public Works with the information so that a fair set of rules can exist in the tendering process. Now, Mr. Bennett, I'd be extremely concerned.

I have a question for you, Mr. Bélair. What kind of relationship do you have with, or do you know, Lieutenant-Colonel Jacques Taillefer, or maybe I'm mispronouncing it?

[Raymond Bélair]

He was part of the program I think around 2004.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So you do know this gentleman.

[Raymond Bélair]

Of course. We worked together—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You worked together.

[Raymond Bélair]

—in this program.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I see. And did working together involve strictly work in offices, or was there sometimes after hours work?

[Raymond Bélair]

It was totally a business relationship.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Were there any other people at Royal LePage who would have had a working relationship with this individual?

[Raymond Bélair]

Most of the staff who deal with this on a day-to-day operational basis would have or could have.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What about Major D'Amours de Courberon?

[Raymond Bélair]

Alain.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I don't have the full name here. I guess it is J.D.