Public Accounts Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

[David Marshall]

Mr. Chairman, you know, we don't cancel contracts lightly. We would have to cancel based on termination for convenience. That causes a lot of considerations to be brought into play, as I mentioned: lost future profits, reputational damage, and all kinds of things that have to be taken into account. So I can advise the committee that it is a considerable number.

If it does come to this, and we do cancel for convenience, we're going to be in a legal fight with the incumbent and others, and it's just not appropriate to be talking about that number. We look at what is our maximum and minimum and we try to understand the risk, and we've done that and feel the situation doesn't warrant that step.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

As the mover of the motion, can I just move on, Mr. Chair?

The other side of this is that it's a crucial piece of the puzzle as to what we're going to recommend. It seems to me that going in camera affords Mr. Marshall the confidentiality he's looking for, given that we'll be talking about ranges.

Even if somebody leaked it, it wouldn't take too many other lawyers who deal with the stuff on a regular basis to quickly calculate what kind of number we're talking about. But I don't have that expertise and I'd like to know the range we're talking about, whether we're talking.... Well, anyway, it could be anything, given that the whole contract is $1 billion.

So I really would like to hear that, Chair, and I would consider it a breach of my privileges if I'm denied that number, given that I'm offering to take it in confidence. I'm willing to honour it in confidence and that it not to be repeated and that I won't use it anywhere publicly, but I do believe I need it to make an evaluation on how I'm going to vote on the issue of whether we want to recommend re-tendering or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are there any other thoughts or comments from members?

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I think it would be wise for us at this point to go in camera and have those discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Well, I'm prepared to go in camera, but not at this point in time. I just want to conclude. We're going to go back to conclude any other relevant examinations not tied totally to this issue.

We have Mr. Fitzpatrick, and then Monsieur Laforest, I believe, and then we'll go in camera.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm just asking for two things here, with the help of the representative from Royal LePage.

Concerning the firm you engaged to do your consulting work, reference has been made to that firm and to Ms. Buckler. I would also ask you to provide a list of all individuals from that firm who would have contacted MPs personally, and who they would have contacted, and all the details surrounding those contacts—the times, the places, and so on—to get a full picture of what might have transpired here.

I'm just going to make a comment to you before I leave this. When you use precedents and you re-use them without thinking about them and analyzing them, you're going to get yourself into trouble. I think that's the lesson we should learn out of this experience: every circumstance changes, and you need to put your thinking cap on and re-evaluate what you're doing.

I just wanted to get some clarification, Mr. Danagher, about this personalized account. The maximum amount a person can get under this thing is $12,000. Is that correct?

[Dan Danagher]

That's correct.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

And if a person who's getting the $12,000 keeps his property—let's say he's moving from Ottawa to Edmonton—he's still free to buy a property in Edmonton and get the costs of acquiring a property in Edmonton covered as well? Can he put in a claim for that stuff, like the moving expenses and the legal fees?

[Dan Danagher]

I'd have to defer to my expert, if I could. It's an important question. Could Ram Singh, who has been previously identified, come to the table and answer those questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Definitely.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes, and there's another question too, so that we can get two birds with one stone.

If the person has a spouse who's going to stay behind in Ottawa and live in the premises, with just the one spouse going out, is that spouse still eligible for the $12,000 payment?

[D. Ram Singh, Senior Financial and Business Systems Analyst , Project Authority Integrated Relocation Program, Labour Relations & Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat]

With the way the system is set up to work, Mr. Chair, the individual being relocated options the incentive at origin. For someone moving from Ottawa to P.E.I., for example, they option the incentive not to sell their house in Ottawa when they go to P.E.I. and buy a house. As it is currently for any public servant, we do not pay purchase costs outside of legal, so it's a very minimal amount.

If that person, in a subsequent transfer, is leaving, that person could also retain the P.E.I. house. The way the incentive works is that for the rest of that person's public service lifetime, the Government of Canada will never incur any expenses to dispose of the house that the incentive was optioned on.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

What about the question about the spouse? If the spouse remains in the premises in Ottawa and isn't moving, but is working for another department of the government or in the private sector, you don't look into that?

[D. Ram Singh]

The property will never come back up at government expense. We will never incur the expense to sell that.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm talking about the first move.

[D. Ram Singh]

That property is still on inventory for which we have paid an incentive of up to $12,000. The Government of Canada will never again have to pay for a disposal of that property, period.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Right.

And just so I don't forget something before I'm finished here—and this will be the last thing—I'd like the undertaking of the representative from Royal LePage, on the record, to provide the information that I requested.

[Graham Badun]

I'll chat with counsel and make sure they're comfortable with that. The original request was in response to—

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want the full story on this. I don't want a one-sided version of it.

[Graham Badun]

To get the full story, you should ask my colleague at Envoy Relocation for the same.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Personally, I don't find that acceptable. I want to know all the details on that.

[Graham Badun]

In terms of a full story, there's a side that was started by these folks who brought us to the table in terms of doing a lobbying effort, having to talk to my counsel about it, and understanding it. I think the request should be made of both parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, the member has the right to question any witness he wants and get the information. He doesn't have to ask for it from another party.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, are you—

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You can't have it both ways. We can't be provided information on one person on that lobbying firm without looking into the full story with that lobbying firm, in terms of all the people who were lobbying people. Whether they were lobbying Liberal members or Bloc members or whatever they were doing, let's get all the cards on the table.

[Graham Badun]

I understand the request.