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.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Department lawyers, and our own look at the contract and what it might cost.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
But is this the source of...?
I'm sorry. I want to be very precise on this point. Who has done this assessment for you? Is it someone in the government, or is it someone in the private sector? Who has done it?
5:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
The assessment of the cost has been done by people within the government.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre.
Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Madame Brunelle, you have eight minutes.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am going to give my time to my colleague Jean-Yves Laforest.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Badun, I want to come back to the fact that the committee adopted a motion following a letter sent to it by Mr. Atyeo asking for an audit of the whole process in April 2005. You say that you hired Ms. Buckler in May 2005 to meet with members of this committee.
Can you tell us who those MPs were?
5:15 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
You're right. We did engage Fleishman at that point in time, and I want to be clear and come back to a point you raised earlier on this. When we engaged the firms....
This matter about the registration just recently came to my attention. It's my understanding that it was an administrative error and they raised the issue with the registrar at the time. The registrar acknowledged the mistake and they fixed it.
Certainly there are several consultants who would have been working on the file at that particular point in time, and it's my understanding that there was no intent to deceive. It was a genuine error and I took them at their word for that.
With respect to the process and the meetings, and whatnot, you referenced Mr. Atyeo having engaged the committee. At the time, Mr. Atyeo made a submission to this committee that we later learned included a piece of research to a reader. This purported to have been prepared either for or by the Canadian Real Estate Association.
When we saw the research, we contacted the Canadian Real Estate Association to challenge the accuracy of it and to request and at least get our side of it, only to have them confirm that in fact no research had ever been commissioned for, nor authorized by, the Canadian Real Estate Association. So we were shocked to find out that the committee was hearing this after Mr. Atyeo had exhausted the CITT claims and channels to take a political route and to misrepresent the—
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
You said earlier that Ms. Buckler met with some MPs. I would like to know the names of the MPs in question, and not necessarily all of the process involved.
5:15 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
I'm sorry, I don't have that on the tip of my tongue. I can get that for you, though.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
You don't recall the names of these MPs. Do you have them in your files? I suppose Ms. Buckler reported to you on her work?
5:15 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
You know, honestly I don't know. I took over running this company about a year and a bit ago. That was prior to my time in terms of direct involvement in that, so I'd have to go back and look at files and ask some questions. If you'd allow me, I'd be happy to do that.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I would like you to provide them to us.
Earlier, you talked about an error. Were you talking about an entry error, or about an error concerning Ms. Buckler's registration? As you know, Ms. Buckler is the Prime Minister's Director of Communications. So I think it is extremely important that you provide us with the correct information.
5:15 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
I believe—and again, acting in terms of what they told me—it was just a date error. Again, once remedied, it was acknowledged by the registrar that this was a genuine and legitimate mistake and they had it registered, but there were certainly other members of the firm who were acting on our behalf who were registered.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In any case, I remember that you told us that she was hired in May 2005—Mr. Bélair had also said the same thing—and that she registered as a lobbyist on June 22, 2005.
At the previous meeting, on December 12, 2006, Mr. Bélair, in reply to a question I put to him, did not deny that Ms. Buckler's mandate was to delay the adoption of a resolution put forward by member of Parliament Dean Allison, a member of the committee. That motion was a request that the committee ask Ms. Fraser to carry out an investigation. Mr. Bélair did not deny that that was Ms. Buckler's mandate.
Can you deny it?
5:20 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
What I'd be prepared to comment on is the fact that we engage for general procedural understanding of this process. You have to understand that this isn't something we, as a private company, and I, as a private citizen, go through on a regular basis. There was no specific mandate to push back dates; it was truly to understand the process.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
There was no specific mandate to delay the date of that motion's adoption. I am asking you whether Ms. Buckler's mandate was to meet with MPs to prevent that motion from going forward, from being passed by the committee, so as to prevent the Auditor General from investigating the process?
Mr. Bélair did not deny that that was the case. I am asking for your opinion.
5:20 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
The mandate of Fleishman-Hillard--again with multiple people involved--was to get facts out to help us understand the process. There was no mandate at all around delaying dates and recommendations. That was absolutely not part of it.
5:20 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
It was to help us understand the process; to help us understand what it means to have the public accounts committee review something; to help us get facts out in order to make sure that all sides of the story were understood, etc.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
You already had the contract. The contract had been awarded to you six months before and a letter had been sent by Mr. Atyeo to the public accounts committee emphasizing the fact that the process seemed unfair to him at the very least. He outlines several facts. Between the moment when that letter was tabled and the moment when it was discussed for the first time at the committee in April 2005, close to six and a half months elapsed, since this resolution was passed in November 2005.
In the meantime, you hired lobbyists to understand what was going on, but they made representations to MPs. I have trouble understanding: if the mandate was not to delay things, that is nevertheless what happened, since it took six months before the motion was passed and referred to the Auditor General.
What do you think of that?
5:20 p.m.
President, Royal LePage
I'm afraid I can't comment on the length of time proceedings and motions take. I'm just not capable of answering that question. I'm answering to the best of my ability on what we engaged them to do. How long a committee takes to undertake and make a decision is outside of the scope of my skills and knowledge.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In any case, I would like you to send us all of the documents, please. I would like you to send us whatever information you have with regard to the mandate and to the reports that were submitted by Ms. Buckler.