Evidence of meeting #55 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was problem.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
A voice
It doesn't matter.
4:40 p.m.
A voice
So who's interrupting?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just want to clarify again to ensure that I haven't misunderstood the process of in camera meetings.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
This is, because it cuts to the chase of the in camera meeting that we had. I just don't want any breaches of confidentiality to happen here.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
You're blowing smoke, Chris. I'm not breaching any confidentiality. I'm simply saying that the--
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
You can't. You can't be briefed on it. That's the point.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
I do not believe the minister provided enough information to this committee for us to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it's in the best interests of taxpayers. The motion before us right now reflects the fact that committee members on this side of the table feel they do not have enough information to arrive at a conclusion. That's simply all it says.
Yes, the government side entered into a confidentiality agreement with the two banks. That was the government's decision. Yes, the minister feels he cannot breach the confidentiality agreement with those parties. That's the minister's decision. It was the government's decision to take those actions and enter into those particular agreements. It is our responsibility and our duty to represent the people who sent us here, and who actually, as taxpayers, own these buildings for all Canadians. You can't suck and blow at the same time. We have to get the information to understand whether the sale price is reasonable, the leaseback is reasonable, and this is the most prudent financing arrangement possible.
I asked the bank representatives when they were here if they'd examined the alternative of using bank capital to loan to the government, to be financed with the money we use for repairs every year, so we'd retain ownership of the buildings and perhaps hire a property management firm. Is that a reasonable option? Did they look at it? The answer from the witnesses was “Yes, we looked at it.” To the question “Can we see the numbers to see what your work-up was?” the answer was “No, that's confidential.”
Without that kind of information, we're relying upon the expertise of another party when it is still our responsibility as representatives of the people to reach a conclusion so we can go back to our constituents who may ask, “Was that a good deal that you guys sold those nine buildings for a billion and a half dollars and leased them back for 25 years? Tell me about that.” Well, I'm sorry. I don't have any information. I'm sorry, the minister couldn't tell me anything. I'm sorry, the expert witnesses couldn't provide us any facts. You as a taxpayer were deemed by the minister and the officials not important enough to have the information. I, as your representative, was deemed not significant enough to have the information for us to arrive at a conclusion as to whether this is in the interest of taxpayers.
That's the only point of this motion. That's why we're here. It's not to screw you guys over. It's not to hold the government up. It's not intended for that.
We've tried six ways by Sunday to get to this information and have been denied it. If we're going to continue to be denied it, you're asking us for a leap of faith, and I, for one, am not going to make it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In fact, that is exactly the point. When the motion came up last week, I was very hesitant to support it because of the moratorium issue, and we spoke about that. After I looked at it over the weekend, I figured, you know what, we have a responsibility as members of Parliament for oversight of Public Works.
The other thing that's important here I think is that this is a precedent. This is the first nine buildings of how many--maybe 40, maybe 100, maybe 200? If we haven't done--
4:45 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Not 360, because some of them are defence buildings, I believe.
I think what you have to look at here...and my colleague here is precisely right when he says in ten years or in five years somebody could look back and say, “You know what? This was a terrible deal, but you know what we based our decisions on?” And I quote the minister here. I think it's important that we have to be basing our stuff on facts. When the minister was asked on what information he made his decision, he said, “Well, based on information. But you know, it might come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of people in cabinet who have private sector expertise and have a lot of common sense. And it came across to us, all of us, that being in bricks and mortar isn't necessarily something that we need to be as a government.”
Well, you know what? I'm not sure I'm prepared to make my decision based on the fact that there are a couple of private sector guys in cabinet who think it's a good idea. It seems to me the reason we invited the minister here in camera was to be able to share some of the information with us with regard to the study.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
No, no, in camera. Sorry, we invited the minister to come to speak to us in camera so that he could inform us what reason his decision to sell these buildings was based on.
So basically what we have is this. The minister is saying, “You know what. Trust me, guys. We'll get the information. We'll make the best deal possible.” Then in five years or seven years they're going to come back and say, “Whoever was on the committee, they were a bunch of idiots because they did not do their job.” I'll tell you, I don't want to be one of them. We need to know exactly what it's based on.
As I was saying, I think it's probably not a bad deal. I think the government may have to get out or maybe should get out of owning their own buildings. It's a possibility. But we haven't got the information.
And you haven't got the information, by the way, to make that decision either.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Ray Simard has always been a good man and a good friend, but I quote:
The truth is, being a landlord is not a core business of government, nor should it be. Studies show that we spend more to operate our properties and, in fact, on top of that we have more space per employee than the industry average. We've simply not as efficient.
We shouldn't be in the bricks and mortar business. That's what the Liberal Minister of Public Works said. Ray, you were on side when the Liberals were doing this. Now you're saying it's a bad idea when we're doing this.
