(Quebec) A war of power is taking shape between two watchdogs of the integrity of public contracts due to a bill from the Legault government. Quebec wants to expand the powers of the Autorité des marchés publics (AMP), which would now lead it to play in the flowerbeds of the Office of Inspector General (BIG) of Montreal, worries the metropolis.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Tabled by the President of the Treasury Board, Sonia LeBel, Bill 12 aims both to “promote Quebec purchases” and to “increase the powers” of the AMP. The deputies will study it in detail in a parliamentary committee starting this Tuesday.
In a brief recently sent to the parliamentary committee, the City of Montreal expresses its concerns about certain provisions of the bill. It notes that the AMP would encroach on the jurisdictions of the BIG by being able to prohibit any company deemed not to have integrity from obtaining public contracts throughout Quebec, including Montreal. “This broadening of the AMP’s powers of intervention is of concern to the City of Montreal, in that it will lead to competition with regard to the powers of intervention of the two bodies, the Office of Inspector General and the Autorité des public markets for the contracts of the City of Montreal and its related companies”, maintains the City.
It recalls that the law creating the Autorité des marchés publics, adopted in December 2017 in the wake of a recommendation by the Charbonneau commission, contains a clause in article 68 providing that the monitoring of metropolitan contracts is under the responsibility of the OIG, which already had this mandate since 2014, and not under that of the AMP. “The functions and powers vested in the Authority […] are, with respect to the City of Montreal […]exercised by the Inspector General of the City of Montreal”, indicates this article.
The City of Montreal is therefore asking the Legault government to correct the situation by amending its bill, “for the sake of sound management of public funds and efficiency with regard to the integrity of public contracts”.
“More specifically, provisions must be introduced in such a way as to provide for reciprocity mechanisms ensuring that the AMP takes into account the actions carried out by the OIG and vice versa, and this, for the benefit of the public interest. Formalizing the sharing of information between the two organizations, in a coordinated manner, would ensure better management of public resources in the pursuit of a common goal, which is that of respect for integrity in public contracts”.
According to her, “the absence of provisions relating to the overlapping of jurisdictions seems likely to compromise the achievement of the best results. Thus, in certain circumstances, the actions of one could be likely to hinder or harm the actions of the other, which goes against sound public management”.
“We take care of the rest of the province”
During consultations in the parliamentary committee on March 15, the boss of the AMP, Yves Trudel, maintained before the elected officials that the BIG had nothing to fear and offered another interpretation of the bill. Parti Québécois MP Sylvain Gaudreault then asked him if the expansion of the powers of the AMP provided for in Bill 12 “risks leading us into confusion or an overlap in functions” with the BIG.
“Oh! Not at all, replied Mr. Trudel. The BIG has jurisdiction on the island of Montreal with the municipal contracts of the City of Montreal. So, we leave the City of Montreal to the BIG, since it has jurisdiction, then we take care of the rest of the province”. For him, the bill brings, “at the level of the City of Montreal and our relationship with the Office of Inspector General, no difference”.
However, according to a source familiar with the file at the City, Montreal has asked the government for guarantees that the powers of the BIG will remain intact and that the AMP will not play in its flowerbeds. She didn’t get them.
In this context, there are fears of a “takeover” of the BIG by the AMP, said this source.
In a short written statement, Sonia LeBel’s office says “hears[re] concerns” of the City. He had discussions with the office of Mayor Valérie Plante last week about this dispute between the Legault government and the City, which is in addition to that on the REM de l’Est. “We ensure that the AMP and the BIG collaborate effectively and have no intention of interfering in the organization of the latter,” he added.
PHOTO ROBERT SKINNER, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
Last February, the BIG said it had discovered “serious and serious” shortcomings in the awarding of contracts for the construction of the new Bellechasse transport center of the Société de transport de Montréal.
Praises from the BIG
Proof of its great concern, Montreal devotes long passages of its brief to the defense of the BIG which, since 2014, “works tirelessly to maintain and promote accountability and integrity in the City”.
“Monitoring the execution of contracts has, over time, notably enabled the OIG to uncover several breaches of integrity. More than thirty public reports thus come to denounce such observed facts and, above all, to propose concrete solutions adapted to the reality of Montreal”, pleads the City.
She adds that the BIG has received and processed more than 1000 denunciations since its creation.
[Les] talks [du BIG] generally make it possible to make the necessary corrections before the closing of calls for tenders, thus preserving the project completion schedule and avoiding the crystallization of long and costly legal disputes.
Excerpt from the brief of the City of Montreal
Since the beginning of the AMP, its organizational chart has included members from the BIG. Its director of intelligence and surveillance, Dave Charland, is a former OIG recruited by the AMP’s first CEO, Mr.and Denis Gallant, who had himself directed the BIG after having been a prosecutor for the Charbonneau commission.
The OIG has made headlines a few times with its investigations since its creation, while the AMP has so far been rather discreet. For example, he revealed last week that the entrepreneur who holds the quasi-monopoly of recycling in Montreal, Ricova, used deception to sell abroad the materials recovered in the metropolis, without giving his fair share of the income to the city. He could have forced the immediate termination of Ricova’s contracts, but he gave the City leeway since such a decision would risk causing disruptions in service for citizens. The OIG recommended terminating the contracts “as soon as possible”. It is a consideration of the reality of the metropolis to which the town hall was sensitive, but which, it is given by way of example, could be compromised with the provisions of the bill.