Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2004

Auditor General Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the press clip from the Charlottetown Guardian relates to the Byrd amendment and the favourable ruling Canada received relative to the Byrd amendment. There are a number of products under WTO rules, under the rule of law, which we could retaliate against as a result of the way the Americans use our duties to subsidize uncompetitive industries in the United States. Therefore, there is a list of trade products that we could retaliate against.

On the BSE issue, that recourse is not necessarily available to us. However, we continue to look at all options. I want to point out that we have exported to the United States 267,000 tonnes of beef so far this year--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Battle River.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss a question that I asked on November 5. The question was about a Royal LePage contract which was announced on November 2 by the Minister of Public Works.

The contract is for relocating staff with the RCMP, national defence and the Government of Canada. This contract was to replace the contract which was awarded in 2002 and later cancelled.

The new contract is over a five year period and is worth just $154 million which an 85% reduction from the 2002 contract which was worth approximately $1 billion, as announced by the Minister of Public Works on December 19, 2002. I hardly believe that Royal LePage would take an 85% cut in its fees to do the same work that the previous contract involved.

Since I asked my original question, I have discovered that the contract is essentially for consulting and management fees and that additional contracts will have to be signed for flow-through costs for third party suppliers, such as realtors, lawyers and home inspectors. Let me state this again. This new contract, which the government announced with great fanfare, is only for the management of the contract. It is not for the whole contract for the relocation of the employees of the federal government.

Some would say that the minister is misleading Parliament with his spin. The minister has claimed that the contract was open and transparent. However, when I asked him to table the documents relating to the contract, he would not do it. Why is that? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can get me the answer.

If we add up the moves, last year the government moved over 14,700 employees. Over a five year period, that total adds up to over 73,800 moves. If the government continues to claim that this contract is the one and only, can it provide any documentation on how it is planning to hire lawyers, realtors, movers, house appraisers and only pay a total $2,087 per move? I am sure Canadians would love to be able to move across Canada for only $2,000.

Just so the House understands how I came upon the figure of $2,087 per move, I will explain that the total contract, just over $154 million divided by the 73,800 moves equals $2,087.

It is plain and simple, Royal LePage, like any private corporation, is in business to make a profit. The way that the minister is trying to spin this contract, Royal LePage would go bankrupt very quickly. I do not believe that Royal LePage would sign a contract that would put the company at risk.

Is the minister willing to table in the House all the documentation relating to this contract?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am answering on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

In December 2002 a contract was awarded to Royal LePage Relocation Services of Don Mills, Ontario to administer the relocation process. The integrated relocation program is mandatory for members of the armed forces, the RCMP, public service executives, deputy ministers, governor in council appointees, and public service employees represented by unions.

On March 26, 2003 a complaint was filed with the CITT alleging that the government improperly applied the evaluation method set out in the request for proposals, RFPs, and that there was a bias in favour of the incumbent contractor, Royal LePage Relocation Services.

In July 2003 the CITT determined that the complaint was valid in part and recommended that Public Works re-evaluate certain sections of the bidders' proposals using a modified evaluation process. However, the allegation of bias was found to be not valid.

In the interim, a separate complaint of conflict of interest was filed by another bidder, Relonat/Envoy, in relation to the award of this contract. Public Works investigated the allegation of conflict of interest and found that while there was no evidence of criminal activity, there was a perceived conflict of interest. Public Works decided to conduct a new procurement process to ensure a fair, open and transparent process.

Two new contracts were awarded in November 2004: one contract for the Department of National Defence, and a second contract for the RCMP and Government of Canada. There are provisions within both contracts to ensure a fair distribution of referrals to third party service providers. They are the people who provide appraisals, legal services, real estate services, building inspections, property management services, and rental searches. They have the opportunity to do so providing they agree to meet the conditions, service level standards, fee schedule, and administrative procedures established by the contractor in conjunction with the project authority at Treasury Board.

The contract clearly states that the selection of a third party service provider remains the employees' choice. If requested, Royal LePage will assist them in the selection of suppliers who have signed a commitment of service to provide them with those services. However, the request for referral is very rare, and has only occurred eight times since December 2002.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting but I knew all that. That did not even address my question in any sense of the word.

The minister assured us that the contract was open and transparent. In fact the contract shrank from $1 billion down to $154 million with no indication that the required work was any different from the original contract. Where is the transparency in this process?

If this proposal is open and transparent, I simply ask the minister to table the documents related to this contract so that we can all see why the original contract worth $1 billion is now only worth $154 million.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the relocation services provided by Royal LePage include taking advantage of volume purchases and providing advice to relocating employees and their families, not the removal of household goods which are covered under separate contractual arrangements. That may be part of the explanation.

The integrated relocation program is mandatory for members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. In 2003 there were 14,772 relocations under the program. This new procurement stemmed from a ruling by the CITT and a perception of conflict of interest received by the department relating to the earlier award of this contract. An internal investigation concluded that there was no conflict of interest.

The total value of the new contracts is approximately $155 million, not including the flow through cost to third party suppliers, which would be on top of that. This is a competitive, open and transparent process.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)