Yes.
Evidence of meeting #55 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 contracts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #55 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 contracts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Associate Partner, KPMG
Mr. Koziol was already working as a consultant at the NCPC. It was evident from this e-mail that he had had lunch with Mr. Brazeau and was discussing requirements that they had for bringing in resources, identifying specifically who they wanted, the company they wanted, and the timeframe.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
Associate Partner, KPMG
Yes. It can be evidence of their identifying who they need and advising Mr. Brazeau in advance who they want. Then Mr. Brazeau has to set up a procurement process in which he's going out to the public to get bids, and he knows exactly who they want, the nature of the procurement that's to be done....
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Brazeau, could we have your comments on what you've heard so far, sir?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It was standard practice at the agency that the client could invite the preferred bidder under a limited tender.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Do you know whether or not that's accurate, based on the procedures within the department?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So this is not problematic—or it's problematic, but it's indicative that it's a system-wide problem?
4:20 p.m.
Associate Partner, KPMG
It's indicative of identifying the resource. I don't think the e-mail in itself in this case would necessarily be an issue. It's the whole process that unfolded after that in terms of the procurement as it happened.
4:20 p.m.
Associate Partner, KPMG
It would be a case, without necessarily looking at this file, of getting an RFP that you're issuing to perspective bidders whom you're selecting to send the RFP to, based on the knowledge you have of them, and then how you deal with the prospective bids when they come in, assuming there's more than one bid.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Mr. Christopherson, I just think the whole thing stinks, to tell you the truth.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
You begin with the notion that in this case, in the NCPC you had an officer—I believe it was Mr. Crupi—whose own organization wouldn't put through the contract he wanted put through. That's the first thing.
Why was that? It was because they didn't agree that these were legitimate contracts. The people working had run out of options for legal contracting according to the Treasury Board rules, so they said to him no, we can't do this for you. He came to Public Works, our main contracting function, and our staff told him they weren't prepared to simply issue contracts to the people he wanted, that it had to be a competitive process. He then ran out of that option and was told—I don't know by whom—that there's this organization in Consulting and Audit Canada where, if you have problems of this kind, they'll facilitate the process for you.
He gets hold of Mr. Brazeau, who then by some means or the other, in the sense of however the various RFPs were run or bids evaluated, magically ends up with the very names that were required by the client.
In my books, that's just rigged, and it's not allowed. I don't care who says whether they—You've just heard Mr. Brazeau say he never put any contracts through, or something to that effect. Yes, it's true there was a contract processing unit within Consulting and Audit Canada, but the manager who referred these things to be put into contracts was Mr. Brazeau, so he was the individual who managed the process of facilitating these contracts. That's how I see it.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
My time is up for this round.
Thank you all for your answers.
Thank you, Chair.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.
Before we go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I just have one quick question for you, Mr. Marshall. I agree with everything you're saying, and you've summarized it excellently, but you will agree that your department was a co-conspirator in this scam that was going on.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
That's correct.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Wait a second.
Were you the deputy at the time in this department?
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Public Works and Government Services Canada
No.
Thank you for that question.