Evidence of meeting #33 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bélair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions, Public Works and Government Services Canada
I think in retrospect, yes, it probably would have. Had they known their correct volumes, and assuming that information was not available to others, yes, it would have caused them to price--
5:10 p.m.
NDP
5:10 p.m.
A voice
It was worth $48.7 million.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So $48.7 million.
I mean, this is the issue at hand, Mr. Chair. And then given the fact that we had the previous contract that had to be set aside because of potential conflict of interest, and the fact that we still have a government that hasn't said they're going to do anything about this yet, this thing is far from over. I'm going to keep maintaining that: we're not going to get to the bottom of this in this length of time.
Just so we understand, from 60% is what you had to bid. You looked at it and said, “I need to cover that”, when 0.22% is actually how much it cost. The current contract holder would know that. You couldn't access the information.
We have issues about whether or not that information should have been available and who should have provided it. We still don't have answers for that. We haven't been anywhere near those kinds of issues.
Furthermore, in terms of the fairness of the contract, $48 million on a one-line item? I'd like to know why this wasn't caught in the pilot project. What was the interpretation of who provided those services in the pilot project, and what did it cost there?
December 12th, 2006 / 5:10 p.m.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Mr. Chair, the information in terms of the 2002 and the pilot...the program was changing in terms of the estimated business volumes.
As well, the second process, in 2004, was 18 months after the 2002 contract. It was based on, as I said, the best information the departments had given us. It was based on what we expected in terms of that business volume. That was the basis for the RFP.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Auditors, do you find that acceptable? I know I don't, but you're the professionals.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I'd just repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we easily accessed the actual information during the audit.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But the fact that the discrepancy was allowed to remain and wasn't picked up, this wasn't clarified.... Royal LePage is arguing that it's a wording interpretation thing about which we disagree, and it looks like something very different, that clearly there was an advantage here.
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
There are two main issues in the audit. The information was materially wrong, and we believe Public Works should have acted on the warnings that came up.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.
I just have a couple of quick questions here, gentlemen.
Mr. Sloan, Royal LePage said they weren't talking about property management issues, but in a letter directed to you dated October 17 they talked about this issue. Did you respond to that letter?
5:15 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
In that letter was a letter we had sent to ask them for comments on the original draft, and we made some adjustments to the text in response to that, yes.
5:15 p.m.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. We made some adjustments to the text and went through that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you.
I have one last question to you, Mr. Goodfellow. We've heard this debate about whether or not Royal LePage is responsible for property management fees pursuant to the provisions of the contract. What is your view on that issue?
5:15 p.m.
Manager, Project Delivery Services Division, Public Works and Government Services Canada
I think the contract is clear, and this is something that I will be consulting the client departments on. If they request my assistance in recovering the money charged for property management services in the event that it did occur, Public Works will assist the departments in recovering those funds.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
That concludes our time, colleagues.
A point of order and a motion? A point of order, Mr. Williams.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
My point of order is quite simple. I asked Mr. Bélair when he first became aware of certain information, and he said when the report was tabled. I believe that is paraphrasing his words, but I think that was the intent of his response. I see in a letter included in this package, what I'm just seeing here, that on October 17, 2006, in a letter addressed to Mr. Sloan, it says, “Thank you for the draft copy of the above-noted report”.
Now, Mr. Bélair, when did you actually become aware of the contents of the Auditor General's report?
5:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I wanted to move that we hold at least one more meeting with witnesses on this chapter, Chair.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay. It is moved by Mr. Christopherson that we hold one more meeting.