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.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
We had asked you then to table with the committee the results or the minutes of that particular investigation. I understand you have tabled this with the committee and the committee will have access to this later on today.
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Bélair, when contract No. 2 was annulled and an invitation to tender was put out for contract No. 3, for which you made a bid, were the criteria used for evaluating the submissions the same as those used for contract No. 2?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Not at all in the sense that there was a great deal of—It cannot be entirely different because the same needs are involved whether it be for the RCMP, National Defence or the government.
Royal Lepage
The thing that changed, Mr. Proulx, is the way in which the evaluation of the bid would be made; it was reviewed. The content did not necessarily change, what changed was the way in which the respondents could respond and in which they would be judged or evaluated.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Bélair, were these changes enough for your company to change its way of presenting a bid?
Royal Lepage
Of course. It was awful, we had to build everything up again from scratch.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Atyeo, you've probably heard the translation of what Mr. Bélair just said about RFPs between the second contract in June 2002 and the other one in 2003.
Do you agree with him that the criteria used were different?
President, ENVOY Relocation Services Inc.
No. I'm not sure specifically what he was referring to, although I was struggling to hear the answer through translation.
December 12th, 2006 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Your company tabled a bid on contract two in 2002. It had been won by Royal LePage. It was cancelled and then they returned to another RFP. Right?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Was the process very different? Was the information very different? Was it necessary for your company to restart the process within your walls to bid on the contract of 2003, in comparison to the one you bid on in 2002?
President, ENVOY Relocation Services Inc.
Fundamentally, as far as the services to be delivered were concerned, no. The major difference between the contracts of 2002 and 2004 was the inclusion in the RFP of a number of security-based requirements that had come into force, presumably as a result of 9/11.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Am I understanding that as far as you are concerned, you could have been using almost the identical dollar figures from the one in 2002 again in 2003, plus a change for these additional security measures, sir?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay.
Mr. Atyeo, there have been all kinds of allegations. Let me ask you two questions.
Were you involved in any of the leaks that came from the Auditor General's report or the preparation of the report?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay.
The information you provided to the committee in 2005 included a briefing note that was prepared for the Canadian Real Estate Association's political action committee. Am I to understand that the Canadian Real Estate Association supports the views in that particular briefing?
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon and welcome.
Mr. Atyeo, you said that at the time you sent a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The process was launched in April 2005 and then, the committee tabled a notice of motion to advise Ms. Fraser, the Auditor General, of the issue that you are raising. This motion was adopted six and a half months later, on November 17.
You must have had some questions about this. A notice of motion had been tabled and nothing was happening. Did you intervene any further?
