Evidence of meeting #29 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was privacy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I have the possibility of an amendment, if Mr. Christopherson would consider it.
Dave, I have no problem with your argument. I'd be prepared to go down that road once we've listened to the gap. If we deem this to be a prima facie case at that point, that would be acceptable because we feel there's more, and then I'd say fine. Our motion is just a little premature before hearing that information.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If I can, and I'm open to a friendly amendment, so I'm willing to engage you.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Again, if I may, the process is that the department gives the committee everything in its entirety, uncensored, and then we would make that determination. If we believe there's no public interest to be served and that the individual privacy rights are paramount, then we would order those names removed before anything is made public. That's the key difference, Mr. Kramp, whether the department is doing that or whether we're being denied our rights and we would do it. What I'm saying is, give us the whole thing the way we asked for it, the way we're entitled under the Constitution, and then we will take responsibility. I suspect we'd be open to your method. I can see that as a follow-up motion, quite frankly, for a future meeting; that's our next step. The first thing is the principle that the department gives this committee, Parliament, the information it's asking for and then we take responsibility from there.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
To get back to Mr. Saxton's point about the business people who participated, I think it's a very dangerous precedent if their confidences are challenged.
Maybe I could offer a friendly amendment, Mr. Christopherson. I'm completely in support of this, but on the basis that we keep the information, the audio recordings, in camera until such time as we can revisit the issue, just to protect the participants.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm open to a friendly amendment that combines that with what Mr. Kramp said. I'm very open to amending my motion that way. I think it improves it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I don't even know if it requires an amendment. The clerk can take instructions from that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The motion is that it be deposited with the clerk, and we can instruct the clerk to bring it to the next steering committee and then deal with it there, not circulate--
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But we do have that understanding, at least, among ourselves, that this is going to be our next step.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay.
You've heard the debate. All in favour of the motion, raise your hands.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, in camera.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
No, Mr. Chairman, except to say thanks for the opportunity to come today and explain our position.
I must say that it took us a lot of effort to try to zero in on that personal information. When I was first presented with this situation, I was told that it would take us until sometime in July. I said we absolutely couldn't do that. We tried to compress it so that we could get the response to the committee much sooner than that. It may not have been as quick as many members wanted, but we certainly went to great effort to provide you with what we thought you wanted.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your assistance. I want to thank you for your attendance today.
Again, these disputes we have in life are common. We have them from day to day. That's life.
Thank you very much.
We'll now take a short break.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'll call the meeting back to order.
We welcome the witnesses.
This meeting is called to deal with the procurement process for the integrated relocation program, chapter 5, “Relocating Members of the Canadian Forces, RCMP, and Federal Public Service”, of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Colleagues, this issue has been with the committee for several years now. It's had a checkered past. It came before the committee, and we wrote a report in May of 2007. We made certain recommendations. One of the recommendations was that the contract be retendered when it did end, which is at the end of this year.
I just want to make a few statements. I've made them before, members. I'm going to repeat them here again.
I consider this, as your chair, a sensitive issue. Because we're in the middle or in the late stages of an ongoing bidding process, I'm going to urge members to use extreme caution in the questions. As has been said a thousand times before, we're a committee of accountability, not management. It's not our job to embed ourselves within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. We cannot rewrite this request for proposal. We cannot amend it, we cannot change it. So just keep our questions and our comments to the framework.
As to the recommendations that the committee did make in May of 2007, I am prepared to rule out of order any questions about the details or any discussions with prospective bidders and certainly any questions about who was bidding, who may be bidding, who may not be bidding--just anything of those details that would be proprietary or relate to what's going on now. It is a system of accountability. In fact, in the briefing book we got, question four is, “How many proposals has PWGSC received to date for the relocations program tendering process?” That would be, as far as I'm concerned right now, out of order.
Having said that, I want to welcome the witnesses. We have back with us the associate deputy minister, Daphne Meredith. She's accompanied for this one-hour session by Liliane saint pierre, assistant deputy minister, acquisitions branch; Mr. Scott Leslie, senior director, special procurement initiatives directorate; and Ellen Stensholt, senior general counsel.
Welcome to the two new individuals, and welcome back to the two previous individuals.
I'm going to ask Ms. Meredith for her opening comments.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Chair, thank you--again--for the opportunity to talk to you, this time about the government's procurement process for the new integrated relocation program.
I'd like to begin by recognizing the considerable work on this file carried out by this committee and by the Office of the Auditor General. I assure committee members that we have taken their recommendations and observations very seriously.
As members know, and as was identified in the November 2006 Auditor General's report, PWGSC's role is to be the contracting authority and interface between the operational departments and the private sector. Our client departments, in this case Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence, and the RCMP, are the program and technical authorities. It is Public Works' responsibility to ensure a fair and open procurement process to enable our clients to meet their program needs. The program and technical authorities are responsible for the definition of their requirements as well as the evaluation criteria to be used to assess the proposals submitted. Each department is accountable for its role within the process.
I am here, of course, to speak to Public Works and Government Service Canada's role and actions. I will not be able to address those issues that relate to the actions of program departments.
PWGSC has fully implemented the applicable recommendations of this committee and the Auditor General. We have retendered the contract to meet the deadline of November 2009. We have required the client departments to verify and certify the business volume information included in the request for proposals. We have provided to this committee and to the Office of the Auditor General the requested action plans and progress reports.
Together with the three program departments, we have used the lessons learned in the development of the current request for proposals. We have amended our policy to require that more than one departmental resource evaluate the financial component for all high-value procurements. We have instituted appropriate procedures to ensure that briefing materials allow appropriate management oversight and review. We have supported the three program departments to ensure that all invoiced rates are in accordance with the contract.
These actions, together with the actions you have asked of the program departments, are expected to mitigate financial and procurement risks and improve the government's overall management of the program.
Furthermore, we carried out a comprehensive consultation with the relocation industry and received more than 400 comments. This input has had a substantial impact on the new approach.
As an additional level of assurance, an independent fairness monitor, selected through a competitive process, has been engaged to review and report on the procurement process. To date he has not raised any concerns.
Finally, the request for proposals was released on April 29 and closes June 22. This allows a fair and reasonable time for bids to be prepared. The 55-day RFP period is not an unusually short period of time. It is in fact longer than the time promised for the three previous relocation RFPs. It is our intention to award the new contract by September 1.
In addition to the three-month transition period between the award of the new contract and the end of the existing contracts, a further three-month ramp-up period will be allowed to ensure that a non-incumbent contractor would not be at a disadvantage. This initiative to provide for a six-month start-up period was presented to industry during our consultations, and no concerns were expressed.
Mr. Chair, I'm convinced that the appropriate actions have been taken and that the procurement process is fair and reasonable.
In closing, I would like to note that it is highly unusual for a Public Works official to comment publicly on a request for proposals during a solicitation period. Our practices to ensure that all bidders receive the same information regarding a solicitation at the same time are there to protect the principles of fairness and consistency.
Under our standard procedures, all communications with industry during the bidding period are carried out on MERX. Any and all questions, together with the departments' responses, are posted on MERX, where the information is available to all at the same time.
We're concerned that statements made here today with respect to the request for proposals or its procurement process may be interpreted as modifications or as providing additional information not included in the request for proposals. Such information may not be available to all the potential bidders, and therefore some bidders could be disadvantaged.
I understand that you've expressed your sensitivity to that issue, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that. I hope that members of the committee will understand that there may be limits, particularly with respect to any interpretations regarding the request for proposals, to what I can say in response to your questions.
Thank you.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering, given what Ms. Meredith said, why are we not in camera?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We normally hold our meetings in public. If the committee wants to go in camera, that's the committee's decision. It's not my decision.
NDP