Public Accounts Committee on May 7th, 2007

[David Smith]

Mr. Chairman, today, I heard about another aspect of the process that I didn't know about. This exercise is done with complete integrity and honesty. I submitted a tender, proposed names of consultants and requested administrative fees for the work. I submitted a tender for approximately 25 contracts and I was awarded 13 of them. But, this was done in accordance with the rules and in all honesty. I was not aware of what was happening within the department's office. I wasn't there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet, and thank you, Mr. Smith.

If there's anyone who wants to make a one- or two-minute closing remark, we'll hear form you. Do any of the witnesses have any final comments?

Mr. Marshall, I understand you have a comment.

[David Marshall]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, there have been a couple of questions asked about whether it's acceptable to paper-over contracts for former public servants, and so on, and I was looking for the quote from the Treasury Board contracting rules. What they say about this is that

Without unduly restricting their ability to seek other employment, former public servants should undertake to minimize the possibility of real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their new employment and their most recent responsibilities within the federal public service.

Then it goes on to say:

No contract for the services of a former public servant in receipt of a pension or of a lump sum payment may be entered into unless it is in the public interest to do so. There must be no suggestion of special favouritism or privilege...

...Contracts for the services of individuals who have been retired for less than one year and who are in receipt of a pension, must include a contract fee that is abated in accordance with the formula outlined below, regardless of fee or contract value.

So in my view, those things were violated--certainly the spirit of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It would appear to be the case.

Mr. Smith, you have a final comment.

[David Smith]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marshall clearly said today that the Government of Canada had received value for money with regard to contracts which Abotech had tendered. I want to tell you in all honesty and integrity that this was done in a fully transparent and proper manner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, I want to thank you very much. I want to thank all the witnesses. I appreciate your indulgences. We did go a little longer than we originally intended.

Mr. Laforest, you have a point of order.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have one quick question, Mr. Chairman. The steering committee met at noon today, and I would like you to confirm that the upcoming May 14 meeting will deal with the issue of access to information and that we will be hearing from Mr. John Spice, Mr. Estabrooks, Mr. Gauvin , Mr. Girard and Mr. Lavoie. Is that what was agreed to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's what we agreed to, Mr. Laforest, although I should point out that Mr. John Spice is not in access to information; he is the ethics commissioner with the RCMP.

That has been agreed upon.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Okay but this concerns—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Again I thank you all for your attendance.

The meeting is hereby adjourned.