Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madam Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

First of all, Madam Chair, I'd like to correct the record. Mr. Moore quoted me earlier, and I'd like to read the entire quote so that the record is clear.

My comment to Minister Fortier was:

I guess the concern is that we don't have the study that was used to justify the sale in terms of it being a good deal for Canadians. That's still an open question. Because it is such a long-term lease, I guess it's a fair question: is it in the interest of Canadians? We don't have disclosure of the contract with the banks. We don't know what their gain will be. We don't know who chose these two banks to handle this deal. And while you're talking about a fairness assessment, we don't yet have that. Which of these documents are we going to be able to get? Will we get the fairness assessment [...] ?

And it goes on. It's more questions.

So I want to correct the record. I do not believe this is a good deal for Canadians. No one who has only the limited information that this committee has been allowed to receive can make that assessment on this committee. I think that's the nub of the question. We don't know if it's a good deal for Canadians.

Not only do we not have the specifics of this particular transaction, as my quote says, we don't have the assessment done by the two banks that would even justify why the proposal for sale has gone forward. We don't even have an overall analysis of why, in principle, a sale and 25-year leaseback, with similar kinds of conditions, is a good proposal. We've not seen examples of other situations where—

[An hon.member]

Yes, we have.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

—this has been a success with these specific conditions.

There are so many open questions here. I know I asked Minister Fortier—I have asked him—about confidential information. We have not been given that. Now others have spoken as to why. But there is not enough for us to say that after 25 years, if that is indeed the term of these leases, Canadians will judge that this has been a good deal.

Now, I appreciate there's never 100% certainty in life, but there's nothing that even says that going forward with this kind of deal in principle is good for Canadians.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Every witness said that. Every single witness said that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

To me it seems fairly basic that the banks have done a study and that we should be able to get access to that study, and yet we don't have that information. I just feel we don't have enough to move forward on here. When we're talking about Canadian assets, so much money is on the line that we want to be sure we're treading carefully with the money of Canadian citizens.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, this motion does not say that we are opposed to the sale of the nine buildings. However, without this motion, we would be giving the minister a blank cheque. It is not a matter of political colour or party. This is not partisanship. It is simply about giving proper respect to the members of this committee.

We do not know how the decision was made. We received a press release on March 5, 2007 where the minister said:The government should do what governments do, that is concentrate on its priorities, and ownership of its buildings is clearly not a priority for Canadians...

Can he prove that? What is the basis for this assertion? Has a study been conducted on this? Since March 5, we have been questioning the various departments, the deputy ministers. We asked questions of the minister. He had the nerve to come here and to waste our time. He did not answer any questions. In the motion we use the word “moratorium“. A moratorium implies that we stop everything until the minister deigns to provide us with a minimum of information on what he is up to.

I would remind you that the much vaunted federal Accountability Act is now in existence. We, around this table, have to account for the use of the property of Canadians. Even I, a member of the Bloc Québecois, have to be accountable to the voters in my riding. People talk about losing a good deal. I am not so sure. Nevertheless, the minister will have a choice. He will have to be responsible for whatever happens. If he decides to sell these buildings without giving us any information, I wash my hands of the whole business. It could just as well be a good deal as a bad one.

In terms of image, he will have to live with it. As of now, it does not look very good. Who is going to buy these buildings? The minister said he would use the proceeds of the sale to renovate other buildings. Furthermore, he announced that he would build more office space on the other side of the river, but he will not be the builder, it will be a public-private partnership. So the building will be done by the private sector. See how muddy this whole business is.

We have to be accountable and the government says it wants to be transparent. If you are so transparent, you will vote for this motion.

This is why, Madam Chair, I call for the vote immediately. Right now!

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

The debate continues.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

No, I call for the vote immediately, Madam Chair.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Point of order.

The mover has the first word and the last word. And the mover just had the last word.

[An hon. member]

I want to debate as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I must let the debate continue. The rules have changed quite a bit.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Chair, there are members who want to speak for the third time on this issue. At least we should ask new members to speak. This is only a recommendation to the House. It's not changing everything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you.

I want to get to the end of this as well. I'm wondering if we can't together do something constructive here. What I'm wondering is if we can make some amendments to this motion that we can all maybe live with. The way I would propose this is we would change the reading to:

That because this committee is not yet convinced of the benefits of leaseback for taxpayers, the committee ask the Department of Public Works and Government Services to provide the committee with additional relevant studies and information on the impact of these leasebacks.

The thing is, we take out the moratorium and we ask for more information. We aren't yet passing judgment, but we'll continue on the investigation with the hopes of getting additional information. The problem with saying that we're going to pass and push forward with the moratorium is this. If tomorrow certain members get additional information, they may be convinced, but they've already said there should be a moratorium. I think this is a positive alternative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Could you read your amendment?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, I hope to do it the same way again. It is:

That because the committee is not yet convinced of the benefit of leaseback for the taxpayer, the committee asks that the Department of Public Works and Government Services provide the committee with additional relevant studies and information on the impact of these leasebacks.

I've put in “yet” in the first sentence after “not”. Then after “taxpayer” I scratched out “the government place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings so that the”. Then I interject instead:

the committee asks that the Department of Public Works and Government Services provide the committee with additional relevant studies and information on the impact of these leasebacks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

On the amendment, Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I thank my friend for an attempt to have a constructive compromise. However, I think the fact remains that because the process is now fully engaged and that I think it's June 12.... But the point is, if we say, gee, we'd like some more information to aid and assist in our study to arrive at a conclusion, the horse will have been long gone out of the barn by that time.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The third party still has to come forward with their recommendation. There's a lengthy process, Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

In a real-world sense, we may be out of this place later this week, and it may be awhile before we actually get back to looking at some of this information. It could be three or four months from now, for all we know, in which case this process is going to be essentially completed. Therefore, it's a moot point. We should have gotten to this point two months ago when we started looking at this.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Bingo!

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Instead of you guys sitting there and saying, “It's confidential; we can't breach this. No one can talk to you about it. We can't provide any numbers.”

Now we get to a point where it's the eleventh hour. What other levers do we have at this point? I think the amendment is not a realistic one at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Warkentin, on the amendment.