Questions and responses All Sessions January 17, 1994, to present

Regarding the Competition Bureau’s investigation, initiated in 2005, and the charges in 2009 against information technology (IT) services companies against which Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) has levelled allegations of anti-competitive bid-rigging: (a) what are the names of the people from PWGSC, the Competition Bureau and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) who engaged in discussion or correspondence regarding the investigation and, if applicable, for each communication, (i) when did the communication take place, (ii) at what stage was the investigation, (iii) what matters were discussed, (iv) was there consensus on the action to take, (v) what is the description of the consensus; (b) during the period from June 1, 2008 to July 31, 2008, what are the names and titles of the people who made inquiries to the Competition Bureau about the stage of the investigation from (i) PWGSC, (ii) the Competition Bureau, (iii) the PPSC, (iv) Canada Border Services Agency, (v) Transport Canada, (vi) the Prime Minister’s Office; (c) were inquiries made to the PPSC or the Competition Bureau by people other than those identified in (b) and, if so, what is the name of each person and the date of the inquiry; (d) did the PWGSC Deputy Minister discuss the inquiry with the PPSC and the Competition Bureau and, if so, (i) when did these discussions take place, (ii) what was the content of these discussions, (iii) was the lawsuit brought by one of the companies named in the charges discussed and, if so, what is the name of the company; (e) can Competition Bureau lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (f) can PPSC lawyers work simultaneously for PWGSC; (g) for the period from June 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, (i) what recommendations were made to PWGSC by the lawyers identified in (e) and (f), (ii) what are the names of these lawyers, (iii) were these lawyers informed of a lawsuit against PWGSC brought by one of the companies named in the Competition Bureau charges; (h) were Mr. Denis Pilon and Mr. V. Chénard, lawyers named by the government in a criminal case, denounced by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; (i) regarding the PPSC’s hiring of Mr. Denis Pilon, (i) what was the date of hire, (ii) what are the names of the people who made recommendations or suggestions or commented on the hiring of Mr. Pilon, (iii) who made the decision to ask Mr. Pilon to handle the file on the IT companies named in the Competition Bureau charges, (iv) were Mr. Pilon’s political activities for the Conservative Party declared and, if so, who informed the PPSC of these activities; (j) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the quality of work performed by the companies involved in the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) what was the assessment of the various departments of each company, (ii) what was the title of the document containing the studies or audits, (iii) on what date were these studies or audits done; (k) regarding the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the various departments involved in the case, was a study or an audit done on the market impact of the alleged bid-rigging and, if so, (i) on what date were these studies or audits done, (ii) what was the title of the document containing this information, (iii) what were the key findings and recommendations; (l) regarding PWGSC’s plan in December 2008 and January 2009 to debar the companies that allegedly rigged bids for IT services, (i) who, within PWGSC, the Competition Bureau or the PPSC, proposed this idea, (ii) was the basic principle of Canadian law that a person is innocent until proven guilty discussed, (iii) did the person responsible for the debarment decide to disregard the principle set out in (ii), (iv) did PWGSC subsequently assure one or more of the companies in question that they would not be debarred and, if applicable, what companies and why, (v) did PWGSC warn one or more departments that these companies might be debarred, (vi) after withdrawing its threat of immediate debarment, did PWGSC inform one or more departments to act as if nothing had happened with these companies, while awaiting the court’s decision, (vii) did PWGSC urge one or more departments to do whatever was necessary to prevent these companies from accessing business opportunities or contracts, (viii) for each circumstance in (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), on what date did the communication take place; (m) did PWGSC senior officials provide instructions to avoid sending written information on certain lawsuits that risked being the subject of a possible access to information or privacy request and, if so, who gave this instruction and for what reason; (n) can the PPSC, the Competition Bureau and the departments involved confirm that they still have all the evidence in their possession; (o) were the companies named in the Competition Bureau’s charges subject to greater scrutiny regarding their commercial activities with the government and, if so, (i) what are the names of the PWGSC employees given this task, (ii) which departments were contacted; and (p) is PWGSC involved in evaluating the proposals or in the contract adjudication process when these companies submit proposals and, if so, (i) to what extent are PWGSC public servants involved, (ii) what is the objective, (iii) what follow-up and communication procedures are in place between PWGSC and the departments regarding these cases, (iv) is there a document describing these procedures, (v) have these procedures largely been followed?

With respect to the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) contract for Engineering and Technical Services (ETS): (a) for each task to be completed under this contract, did the contractor perform the task as stipulated in the contract and, (i) if not, for each of the uncompleted tasks, what are the reasons for which the tasks were not completed and what are the details of the paragraphs of the contract that were changed, (ii) if yes, when did the Department confirm the work had been completed for each task; (b) what measures did the Department put in place to ensure that the contractor respected the contract; (c) has the contract already been audited; (d) how many reports did the contractor provide with a progress update on the tasks; (e) when were the reports in (d) presented to the contracting authority and what were their titles; (f) who was responsible for monitoring and approving the transition from the former contractor to the current contractor; (g) what measures were taken by the contracting authority to verify progress on outstanding tasks; (h) did the contractor inform PWGSC of its staffing plans, which included using people hired by the former contractor; (i) ten business days after the contract’s start date, (i) how many CVs had been provided, (ii) what were the names of the people suggested by the contractor and how many of them then worked on the contract; (j) was the ETS contract changed and, if yes, what changes were made and on what dates; (k) was the contractor paid for all the services provided before the end of the transition period; (l) regarding the drafting process for the request for proposal, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process and the milestone dates, (ii) who were the public servants who participated in drafting the request for proposal; (m) regarding the proposal evaluation process, (i) what is the detailed explanation of the process, (ii) what exactly does the “reconfirmation” step consist of, (iii) who were the public servants who participated in evaluating the proposals and approving the choice of contractor; (n) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in drafting the request for proposal and how were these people or businesses selected; (o) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in evaluating the proposals and how were these people or businesses selected; (p) what are the names of the people or specialized companies that participated in the contracting process and how were these people or businesses selected; (q) did the evaluation documents and relevant computer files remain in the possession and under the control of public servants during (i) the drafting of the request for proposal, (ii) the evaluation of proposals, (iii) the awarding of the contract; (r) can the Department confirm that it still has all the documents in (q) in its possession; (s) regarding the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (i) who made the decision not to use the services of a fairness monitor for this contract, (ii) when was this decision made, (iii) for what reasons was a fairness monitor not retained; (t) as to a forensic audit, (i) who decided not to refer this file for a forensic audit after allegations of interference and conflict of interest were raised, (ii) when was this decision made and for what reasons; (u) did the office of the Minister of PWGSC, the Minister himself, or his deputy minister have discussions with public servants regarding the content of the request for proposals for ETS, the evaluation of the proposals or the contracting process and, if applicable, (i) what was the purpose of these discussions, (ii) who instigated the discussions, (iii) when did these discussions take place; (v) during the period from February 6, 2006, to June 24, 2008, did the Minister of PWGSC announce he was in a conflict of interest and, if yes, (i) when and with respect to what file, (ii) what was the nature of the conflict of interest; and (w) did PWGSC require that the references submitted by each of the bidders be checked and, if applicable, (i) who was responsible for carrying out the reference checks, (ii) when were the checks done for each of the bidders, (iii) who identified the mention of a company associated with the bidder, (iv) what were the reasons for approving a bid with references to an associated company, (v) was Innovapost Inc. identified in one of the bids?

With respect to the development of the logic model for the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), as introduced at the January 29, 2007, meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: (a) who were the members of the interdepartmental working group who participated in the development of the logic model; (b) how often did the interdepartmental committee meet to develop the logic model and on what dates; and (c) what were the forecasts of the logic model for retaining or selling a house, and what are the results to date for each year of the IRP?

Regarding the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP) and the reimbursement of excess broker fees paid by federal employees: (a) how many National Defence employees were reimbursed by the Royal LePage Relocation Services contractor; (b) what is the total dollar amount that was reimbursed; and (c) what methods were used to contact employees who were likely to have overpaid broker fees to the contractor or third-party IRP suppliers?

With regard to the Integrated Relocation Program (IRP), the contract for which was awarded to Royal Lepage Relocation Services since 1999 and Brookfield Relocation Services in 2009: (a) how many quarterly reports has the contractor submitted to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) or any other department since the program was first implemented in 1999; (b) for each of the following periods, did the contractor produce a quarterly report detailing the breakdown of real estate transactions for each agency, were the reports submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat, PWGSC or any other department, and what is the number of relocations of federal public servants, (i) April 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999, (ii) July 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999, (iii) October 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999, (iv) January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2000, (v) April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000, (vi) July 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000, (vii) October 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, (viii) January 1, 2001 to March 31, 2001, (ix) April 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001, (x) July 1, 2001 to September 30, 2001, (xi) October 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001, (xii) January 1, 2002 to March 31, 2002, (xiii) April 1, 2002 to June 30, 2002, (xiv) July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002, (xv) October 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002, (xvi) January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2003, (xvii) April 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003, (xviii) July 1, 2003 to September 30, 2003, (xix) October 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, (xx) January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2004, (xxi) April 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004, (xxii) July 1, 2004 to September 30, 2004, (xxiii) October 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004, (xxiv) January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005, (xxv) April 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, (xxvi) July 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005, (xxvii) October 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, (xxviii) January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006, (xxix) April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006, (xxx) July 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006, (xxxi) October 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, (xxxii) January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007, (xxxiii) April 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007, (xxxiv) July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007, (xxxv) October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, (xxxvi) January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008, (xxxvii) April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008, (xxxviii) July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008, (xxxix) October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, (xl) January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2009, (xli) April 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, (xlii) July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2009, (xliii) October 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, (xliv) January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010; (c) on what dates did the Treasury Board Secretariat, PWGSC, the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conduct verifications to ensure that the contractor had distributed the “federal public servants to be relocated” equally among all the third-party suppliers; (d) which agencies are on the list of third-party suppliers participating in the IRP and what is the breakdown of real estate transactions for each agency; (e) what is the rate for real estate commissions; (f) what is the name of the departmental official or project officer who manages the files submitted by the contractor and how can this person be reached; (g) on what dates were the audits and verifications of the IRP carried out, were they carried out internally or externally, and who is the person or contractor responsible for carrying them out; (h) what information is contained in a standard invoice submitted by the contractor and under what headings would details on additional costs be found; (i) who within PWGSC is responsible for checking each invoice submitted by the contractor and monitoring the contract to ensure the contractor complies with all clauses therein; and (j) how much has the government saved to date through the IRP and how is this amount calculated?

With respect to performance pay for the Chief Executives of Crown corporations in 2008, for each individual, without identifying him or her by name: (a) what is his or her level in the salary scale; (b) what is his or her performance appraisal rating; (c) what is the maximum bonus, in percentage terms, which he or she could be entitled to receive; (d) what was the amount of the bonus paid, as a percentage of salary; and (e) what was the amount of the bonus paid, in dollars?

With regard to large information technology projects, and specifically the four pillars of the Shared Services Initiative: (a) has the government prepared a detailed plan accompanied by schedules to explain how it will proceed with the implementation of these major projects, (i) if so, what are the details of this plan, (ii) if not, what are the reasons for the non-existence of such a document; (b) for each of the pillars, (i) which departments are potential clients, (ii) what is the project’s estimated value (estimated minimum to estimated maximum), (iii) what is the description of each project, (iv) what are the key success factors, (v) what are the advantages and estimated costs, (vi) what is the department’s organizational capacity, (vii) what is the planned project launch date for the invitations to tender, (viii) will the contract be awarded to one supplier or several, (ix) for these long-term contracts, what means does the government have to change suppliers once the project is under way; and (c) with regards to the process for implementing major projects, (i) what are the details of the business plan that was used to justify the projects, (ii) was an independent review done on the business plan and, if so, which individuals or organizations were part of it, (iii) what are the details of the impact studies on the small and medium-sized businesses (SME) in the Ottawa-Gatineau region or elsewhere, (iv) what strategy was used to mitigate the impact on SMEs, (v) is there an impact study for these projects on the information technology industry and, if so, what are the details?