Evidence of meeting #34 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 contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Yes, it was in 2004. We'd already had two contracts--the pilot and a contract--where there was experience, and we still proceeded in 2004 with absolutely no adjustment.
5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
You're quite correct that we didn't make the adjustment. The logic was that there hadn't been enough change or enough time that had elapsed since the 2002 contract, because by the time we were into the RFP process, it was, I believe, only about a year or so into the 2002 contract.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
But that conflicts with Mr. Goodfellow's testimony. When I asked him the direct question about why the numbers weren't updated, he said it was because his department was under pressure to get the RFP out.
5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
Everybody wanted the contract to be out quickly, because at the time--and my colleagues at Public Works will jump in here, I'm sure--the previous contract had been essentially set aside. Obviously, we wanted to put a new contract in place as quickly as possible, because the service is provided by the contractor, and the department didn't have the capacity to provide that service themselves.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
So in the shadow of what happened with the CITT and all the questions around this, speed of this RFP was more important than integrity.
5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
There was another issue, as well--and I wouldn't characterize it that way--and again, I would also ask my colleagues at Public Works to address this. It was felt that in the interest of fairness and to keep rebidding costs reasonable, we shouldn't change too many of the provisions of the RFP, particularly where they hadn't been questioned in the past, and this was one element that hadn't really been questioned previously.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Well, it's certainly being questioned now.
5:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
It is being questioned.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Let me just go back to a statement that Mr. Badun made. When talking about the real estate incentive package, he said that they were instructed on how to bid.
Are you saying that you were directed to take into account that personal money was not part of the crown's obligation?
5:30 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
What I'm saying is that all bidders were instructed in terms of how to bid in terms of following the basis for payment, the total expenditure to the crown, understanding the policy underneath it, and applying the terms of the policy, as well, when they were submitting their final bids.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Atyeo, did you understand it that way, that this personal envelope of money was outside the RFP?
January 29th, 2007 / 5:30 p.m.
President, Envoy Relocation Services Inc.
No. It was, as I explained earlier, that we were asked to provide a ceiling price that would be the maximum a transferred employee would have to pay for property management services.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Madam Fraser, at the risk of putting you on the spot, clearly, property management is a significant part of this tendering process. Yet this personal envelope of funds means that.... I would think, if I was tendering and I did not have experience, that there was an undisclosed aspect of the contract that I wasn't aware of. Am I reaching here?
5:35 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Obviously there seems to be a place for different interpretations of this. Our interpretation is the same as the department's, which is the same as Mr. Atyeo's. Clearly, in the bid documents or in the documents around the contract, it says property management commission, and it has a percentage and it has a note and it talks about a ceiling price, and they talk about the property management commission being a maximum percentage of yearly rental.
Well, I think the way we all interpreted it is that, clearly, the person who's renting is going to be paying that. So why would...? I guess the basic question, the most honest question, is why the government would put that in if they expected to get zero.
So I think there would appear to be different interpretations, but we certainly thought, and government has agreed with this, that this is to be the ceiling rate to be charged for that service irrespective of all the services and irrespective of who actually pays for it, be it government or be it the individual being transferred. Otherwise, this schedule makes no sense.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
That's a good question, Mr. Marshall. Why would we place that in there if we anticipated that, in effect, if I'm not correct, the amount in 2002 was zero? That certainly would have indicated that there should be some reason to reflect on actually asking the supplier for that number.
5:35 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
I believe, Mr. Sweet, that, first of all, the policy on the personal envelope and so forth was available to all bidders. It was attached to the RFP, so there was no hidden thing that got sprung at the last moment.
In terms of why it was included, really I believe the logic—and Mr. Atyeo has referred to it—was that the team was trying to make sure the individual would not be overcharged or gouged. We were looking for what kind of a charge a supplier might have.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Sweet.
Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Williams, for eight minutes.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Sweet would like to finish off a question. He didn't have an answer there.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
With that answer, Mr. Marshall, you would expect that with zero in that tender, there isn't a forces member who should be charged. Is that correct?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question for Mr. Danagher, on this logic model that escaped my logic, Mr. Chair.
You said, Mr. Danagher, that 60% of the people relocating, when they arrived at the new place, were renting. How did you know 60% of the people were renting?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
That's actually information that we received from the Canadian Forces. They actually did have that data.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
So if you knew they were renting when they arrived, did you know whether they were renting or not renting when they left?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
We didn't have data on what their status was at origin.