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.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
We did.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
They had no mechanism for capturing that.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Yet you had two years of experience, you had Royal LePage sending in these quarterly reports, and you totally disregarded all that and said that if 60% of the people arrived and were going to rent at the new location, then they obviously owned a house and obviously were going to rent it out when they left. Is that right?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
The logic was that this was the maximum number or percentage of people who could avail themselves of that service--basically, since the purpose of the policy was to try to stimulate people to do so, for the very first time, because previously these expenses weren't allowable.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
And if I happen to have a few dollars and I own the house I'm leaving and decide to keep it, and I then decide to buy one where I'm going, I couldn't get the—
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
You could. In fact, the logic model that was developed by the committee didn't account for that eventuality, or it saw that there would be a very small percentage.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
It's a wonderful logic model, Mr. Danagher, and now we're in this serious problem here. I would just hope that you.... You're an executive director of the Treasury Board. I find this kind of head-in-the-sand approach inexcusable.
We saw it in the sponsorship scandal, Mr. Chair, and we're seeing it here. People just go on blindly pushing paper, with no thought. When one client says they need $50 million to provide this service and somebody else says they can do it for free, the bell doesn't go off and cause these people to ask if there's a problem here? What kind of civil service do we have here?
Mr. Marshall, I do hope you will ensure that people use their brains rather than pushing paper from here on in. This is unacceptable. We just can't have this kind of stuff happening on a regular basis.
That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I'll turn it back to Mr. Lake, and I appreciate his giving me a couple of minutes of his time.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
You have about five and half minutes, Mr. Lake.
January 29th, 2007 / 5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Chair, to start, I actually just want to get a point of clarification from Mr. Marshall.
In terms of the timeline, the end of this contract is 2009, but what specific date are we talking about?
5:40 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
November 2009.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you.
I share some of the concerns with this that many people on this side of the table have expressed—and the other side as well—having to do with these numbers, especially with the fact that we're getting this brand-new information today. On the last day that we're supposed to be discussing this, all of a sudden we have new information that does somewhat contradict information that we've had in the past regarding the calculations here.
Mr. Danagher, I just want to clarify a few things. Of the 15,000 relocations per year that are talked about in the Auditor General's report, I just want clarification. Does that figure include people who rent as well, or is it anybody who's relocating, whether they rent or own their home?
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
Those would be transferees, yes.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
According to this, I think I'm reading that 40% of the people actually own their homes.
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
At the destination.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes, at the destination.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
We didn't have that data.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
For this purpose, let's guess that it's roughly about the same.
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
Okay.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
So 40% of 15,000 is 6,000 owners. By definition, I would think those are the only people who could actually use property management services for the home they're leaving.
5:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Labour Relations and Compensation Operations, Treasury Board Secretariat
I see where you're going, but that wasn't the logic the interdepartmental working group adopted. Their logic was just the reverse: if 40% bought homes at the destination end, those are the people who probably didn't own homes at the originating end. You can question that logic, but that was the logic used by that group. They felt 60% was the maximum number that would avail themselves of property management services because they couldn't conceive that somebody would realistically opt to own two homes simultaneously--although some people can afford that.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It seems this whole system is actually designed to encourage people to own multiple homes.
One question I have is whether there is a limit. Can an employee move five times? People get relocated all the time. Can they move five times, own five different homes, and have the property management services covered for them?