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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
We're going to be voting for a motion. Let me quote the motion. Hold on.
The motions asks “That...the government place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings...”
You're going to be voting for that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
The problem with that, Garth, is that as we are sitting here, the government--right now--is marketing the buildings. The marketing is going to be going forward, and it closes on June 12. I don't know what the timeline is for concurrence in the House and for a vote after that. There are three hours of debate, and then a concurrence vote.
Right at the peak point when we're taking in offers as we're marketing these nine buildings, you're asking the government to lay all our cards on the table in terms of what the two banks assessed the value of the buildings at and why we chose those particular buildings for a sale and leaseback. This is a fundamentally basic stupid moment to be suggesting this type of proposal. If the government actually followed this, it's a really dumb idea for taxpayers.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
It's not the first moment we've been asking for this; we've been asking for this for a couple of months.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
There's a confidentiality agreement, Garth. You know that. This has been explained many times. Minister Fortier has been before this committee twice on this particular subject; both times committee members ran out of questions, and he satisfied every single question that committee members had.
The clerk has been great in searching for folks who are genuine experts, and to my best recollection, out of every single witness we've had before the committee, there hasn't been one, not one, who has suggested that this motion is the right way to go. I'm not slicing and splicing phrases here. Not one witness who came in here as an expert said that this committee should put a halt to this and really take a look at it. Nobody has suggested that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Those witnesses don't have ultimate responsibility over this sale, my friend, but we do.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Yes, but they also have objective analysis. Their objective suggestions to us as committee members aren't that we may want to put the brakes on this because there's something we haven't thought of. Every last one of them, every single one, said to go ahead, and that this is the right thing to do. They have said that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garth Turner Conservative Halton, ON
With respect, I understand what you're saying, but I think you are putting a spin on it that doesn't exactly match what happened. We didn't ask a lot of witnesses. We were not able to provide the witnesses--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
That's fine. That's fine. I'm finished.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
There are other people who want to speak; I'm sorry.
Mr. Moore, if you're finished, I'll go to Mr. Warkentin.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'll finish by saying that we are currently in the process of marketing the buildings.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm just asking what the rules are. Do we have a particular time allotment or is it just a free-for-all? I'm wondering how we get a chance to speak.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
It's by whoever puts a hand up. We don't follow the rules that we have for witnesses. The person speaking can speak as long as he or she wants. This is different from the normal rules.
We'll go back to Mr. Moore.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I won't be long. This is not a filibustering moment. We can take the vote soon, and that's fine.
For those who are genuinely interested in the best interests of the taxpayers, and I hope it's everybody, at this moment we are marketing the buildings. The bidding closes on June 12, and right at the moment when we're in the process of accepting bids, committee members are asking the government to release publicly the private, confidentiality-enclosed studies by BMO and RBC, which....
4:55 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Yes, it's confidentiality, precisely; it's exactly how it was done when you were in power, Ray, but now you have a problem with it. It's bizarre to me.
Look, this is a profoundly dumb idea. I think if this motion passes, which I suspect it will, this is a case study on how one wastes taxpayers' dollars unnecessarily by jumping to partisanship in a really foolish way. I look forward to the three hours of debate in the House.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to make one point and I don't want to belabour it. I think we all agree that confidentiality on this issue is essential and paramount. It is absolute. Obviously we're at the tail end of possible submissions coming in, and the bidding is coming forward.
Reading from Marleau and Montpetit, confidentiality is not assured simply because a matter is heard in camera. That is something that's an understanding of committees. This whole idea that we can discuss in camera confidential matters that the bank has signed on to and the government has signed on.... Even Marleau and Montpetit has guaranteed us that this can't happen. That's the first point.
The second point is one Garth made earlier. He said that even though he wasn't in the meeting, he had been briefed on what happened in the meeting. That is an indictment of somebody in this committee who divulged information that was categorically confidential and was to be kept in this committee meeting. It essentially speaks to just the severity of the issue: that you cannot have the minister coming here divulging all of the information and then expecting to keep it in this room.
I understand that conversations happen, and that's exactly what Marleau and Montpetit identified, and it is essentially what the minister identified as being the necessary insurance to ensure that this confidentiality is not broken.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I understand the concerns of my colleagues on the other side, and I share some of those concerns as well. But to me this whole argument is about striking a balance. We're asked to pass judgment on this right now. If we have every bit of information and we scuttle a deal, perhaps we've made a wrong decision. If we have no information or not enough information and the deal progresses and isn't satisfactory to the taxpayer, then perhaps we've made a wrong decision.
We are going to be subject to a right decision or a wrong decision, regardless of where we go with this. We are assigned, and we ran for this office, to make some decisions and to gather the best information we have at our disposal.
I'm going to vote against this, not because I don't want more information—of course, I would like more information—but with all respect, Madame Bourgeois.... It's not because I just don't want the motion; it's because, from the testimony that has been given at this committee, I have a deep concern that if more information were to come out, we could just tip that balance to where it could adversely affect the deal and/or the taxpayer.
So I'm going to make a decision. You may make the decision otherwise, and I respect that. But I hope you would also recognize that my, or perhaps our, thoughts on this are not to simply counter a motion so much as to recognize and try to do what is best for the taxpayer.
I really believe that if we mess up this deal and/or the potential of this deal—because this deal is not a done deal.... This deal is only accepting proposals, and then the minister and staff and deputies are going to assess the information. They don't necessarily have to go ahead with this. As they've said, they're only entertaining proposals.
As this information comes forward—information that has to be collected with a fair bit of confidentiality, for competitive reasons—they're going to pass judgment. I'm satisfied that we've had enough information from the various witnesses here that there is a level of protection for the Canadian taxpayer and a level of expertise in place to guide the minister and/or the departmental officials, regardless of which party they are, to making a right decision.
Their duty is to not do something wrong for the Canadian taxpayer. There isn't one member or one minister here who's going to deliberately make a wrong decision and adversely affect the Canadian taxpayer. They would be held wholly and highly accountable for it if they made that wrong decision.
Quite frankly, I'm personally satisfied that there has been enough information given, not to give me a 100% level of surety and/or security, but that I'm inclined to let the process proceed. If I take a look at the other option I have, with this striking of a balance, and go the other way such that we stop the process basically in its tracks and the Canadian taxpayer loses out, then we have made the wrong decision. We're all going to have to come to terms with that decision.
I don't know whether I've adequately explained my position on this, but it is certainly not a partisan position, not a political decision, but a decision based on what we feel would be a good decision for the Canadian taxpayer in the long run.
Those are my thoughts on it.