Evidence of meeting #62 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.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
That's all I can think of, sir. We may have played a game or two of golf, and that's it.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
We also understand from previous testimony that there was a triumvirate involved with massaging or, to use a direct quote from the report of the Ottawa Police Service criminal investigation, in “a scheme to circumvent government contracting regulations”. There were three people involved in that, as we read in the Ottawa police investigation report and heard in testimony here: Mr. Molson, Mr. Garry Roy—who was also involved, we heard, in changing or falsifying minutes of meetings after the fact—and Mr. Molson, who I note has still not arrived, although it is past four o'clock.
Mr. Crupi, of this triumvirate, we now know that Casey Computing Solutions provided you with benefits. What about Garry Roy? Did he ever do any contracting for you personally?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Roy has a separate company through which he does landscaping and stuff. He was contracted to do some landscaping at my home while we were co-managers. He was paid for that work. When I became the director, I never contracted him anymore. I believe my wife contracted him one more time, I believe, to cut down some trees, and he was paid for the work.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
When I take a look at the information in the criminal investigation, I see there were two contracts worth $30,000. One was to build a barn and another one was to do landscaping, as you said--cut trees, etc. It just so happens that coincidentally, at the same time, Mr. Roy received two promotions from the NCPC during that same timeframe.
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
The contract to build the barn, sir, was done with a private company on the outside. It had nothing to do with Mr. Roy.
As far as promotions go--
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Did you have the authority to provide him with promotions at that time?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I had no authority to provide him unless he went through a proper staffing process. He went through a staffing process, and staffing promoted him. There was a staffing officer on the committee.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Monsieur Laforest is next, for seven minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, whenever a person is mentioned, it would be quite helpful if you could remind the witnesses to provide the name of the individual. Since they are mentioned, it would be of use to know who individuals are.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all. I have a few questions for Mr. Koziol.
Did you know Mr. and Mrs. Casey well in early spring 2002? Did you know their company and what they were able to provide?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. I met Ms. Casey on a project in 1991. Some time later I met her husband. This was for work at Public Works on the pension reform project. They both had expertise in the pension area.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Do you believe it is enough to know a company? I note that on April 16, 2002, you sent an e-mail to Mr. Brazeau telling him that the preferred candidate for contract 560-3038 was to be Casey Computing Solutions. From the point of view of managerial ethics, do you think it is sufficient to know a specific company in order to make recommendations even before the deadline for submitting proposals?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
The contract was signed in April 2002, April 26, 2002 being the deadline for submitting proposals. On April 16, you sent an e-mail to Mr. Brazeau, copied to Mr. Crupi, specifying that the preferred candidate for this contract, as well as for a further contract, was Casey Computing Solutions. This raises a lot of questions in my mind.
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes; as discussed at previous committee meetings, and as I believe Mr. McEvoy mentioned, there isn't an issue with a client department wanting a resource, because they've worked with them and they know they can do work and they continue to do work. From my perspective, this was providing a preference for a company that was believed to be able to do the work well.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
We are talking here about a contract valued at $65,912. The next contract was for $108,780. You made this recommendation without having seen their work, even if you had knowledge of their abilities. Then, you sent an e-mail to Mr. Brazeau to thank him for his offer to grant a sole source contract to Casey Computing Solutions in June 2002 for a value of $25,000. I am talking ethics here. Other companies could have applied and probably did.
How can you explain to the public that you continuously favoured the same company?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
As has been discussed previously, the department was there to provide a preference if there was a preference. This did not mean that the contract would necessarily be awarded. I think Mr. Brazeau has discussed this in previous testimony, that a preference could be provided, but no one at the NCPC had anything to do with the actual award of the contracts or of the evaluation of the bids that came in.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Brazeau, you twice asked a colleague at CAC to add Casey Computing Solutions to the list of bidders from which the firm was absent. You did so on April 18, 2002 and on July 17, 2002. I ask the same question again, although Mr. Koziol told us that it was standard practice for a department to make such recommendations. One might understand that a given firm would sometimes be favoured, but in this case it seems to have been recurrent and that contracts were always going to the same firm. How do you feel about that from an ethical point of view, Mr. Brazeau?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I was applying the rules such as they existed at the time at Consulting and Audit Canada. We were entitled to add firms to the list of those invited to bid. When they asked us to stop doing that, we stopped.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In a first contract given to Casey Computing Solutions, the per diem rate was $1,025 and the rate of the second-best bidder was $585. This is a major difference, of almost one half. Did you do a full analysis? Could the second bidder not have done as good a job as Casey Computing Solutions?