Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, you need to understand that—

Public Accounts committee  Again, I would go back, Mr. Chair, to the fact that we were getting the best information available in terms of the estimated business volumes from the departments.

Public Accounts committee  Yes, in terms of the due diligence.... Again, I go back to this point, Mr. Chair. Our line of sight in terms of looking at what is required in a contract is from the department. I take the comments with respect to the business volumes. It's particularly important because if program requirements are changing, if in the future those business volumes would change for any reason, we need to have that information from the department.

Public Accounts committee  I would need to verify. I can't answer that question. It was an internal investigation. I know, as part of a follow-up to an earlier question, Mr. Chair, the question was asked about whether this matter was referred to the RCMP. I am advised that they were apprised of it and they saw no reason to proceed.

Public Accounts committee  Yes, but I'm sure the chair and the committee can appreciate that these things would be very sensitive. Yes, it was a formal investigation.

Public Accounts committee  No, I can't. I would need to take counsel from the human resources end because of the privacy and the personal information. I can't commit that the report, as it is, would be tabled with the committee, Mr. Chair. I will take counsel on that.

Public Accounts committee  During the 2004 contract, David Marshall was the deputy minister and Scott Brison was the minister.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair—

Public Accounts committee  I think your inference is he was being pressured directly in terms of an individual. What Mr. Goodfellow is expressing to the chair and the committee is that given that one contract was being set aside, there was operational pressure to get this new contract in place as soon as possible.

Public Accounts committee  To answer the question, Mr. Chair, these issues with the property management volumes and the estimates hadn't come to the surface in any of the previous processes. Obviously, had they come to the surface or had there been any indication that they were not accurate, it would have been corrected.

Public Accounts committee  Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, I'm not interpreting the question at all that way. I'm just trying to make sure that members understand the process here. So were those numbers accurate? Clearly, in retrospect, they were not.

Public Accounts committee  In terms of the determination of fairness, point number one is that the Auditor General concluded that we had followed the normal processes. The Auditor General was very clear in saying that in this particular instance those processes were not sufficient, given some of the questions that were forthcoming from suppliers.

Public Accounts committee  Let me just expand on the context. I mentioned that this was one aspect of six that were looked at as part of the evaluation. In terms of order of magnitude, it's probably about 10% of the total process. When you look at whether we followed through in terms of what was stipulated in the RFP, and were the bids evaluated fairly, the answer to those questions is yes.

Public Accounts committee  I think the government has a requirement to articulate how it will evaluate bids and to follow through its process and apply that in a consistent manner. And in this particular instance, that's exactly what happened.