Evidence of meeting #56 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 classification.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bibiane Ouellette  Clerk of the Committee , Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates
Susan Louis-Seize  Association of Compensation Advisors
John Gordon  National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Diane Melançon  Association of Compensation Advisors
Michael Brandimore  Association of Compensation Advisors
David Orfald  Director of Planning and Organizational Development, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Margaret Jaekl  Classification Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Rob Walsh  Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you very much, Madame Chair.

Mr. Walsh, Mr. Moore indicated that you clearly indicated that this motion would violate confidentiality agreements. I didn't hear you say that.

5:25 p.m.

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons

Rob Walsh

I might have addressed the issue of confidentiality, but I don't think my remarks went directly to what this motion is saying.

This motion, in my view, has two components. One is to place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings until we get further information. It doesn't ask for information. It just says the production of information is the explicatory factor or the reason given for why the moratorium is being sought.

I'm being legalistic here in reading this, and it's not appropriate for a motion of a committee to be that legalistic, but I'll give you my instincts here. When you're seeking a moratorium, as you are here, and this motion is adopted, that doesn't say anything about the studies or the information that's being referred to here. There would need to be another motion, I would think, pursuant to this, calling for production of such studies and information by some date or something. The procedural clerk of this committee can better advise you on this. It seems to me all this does is place a moratorium on the sale of the proposed buildings.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Is that motion to have a moratorium on the sale binding?

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Can I continue, Madame Chair?

That's the question. The question is, technically speaking, when a committee makes a recommendation to the House, it is a recommendation. Is it legally binding? Does it stop this request for proposals from moving ahead?

5:25 p.m.

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons

Rob Walsh

Not legally.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Thank you. Not legally.

Now, if the House adopts this motion, then it's a different story?

5:25 p.m.

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons

Rob Walsh

No. It's like a resolution of the House. At the end of a supply day or even in private members' business, it's an expression of the intent of the view of the House. It's not a making of law.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

You just resolved it. The motion does not have the force of law.

5:25 p.m.

Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons

Rob Walsh

But it could well be the case—and this is something, obviously, that the recipients or object of this motion have to have in mind—that if the House were to adopt this and the minister were to act in violation of it, the House might be an unhappy House about that. That brings on implications for the minister vis-à-vis the House to whom he's accountable. You might not call that legal, but it's part of our legal system of government. In a sense, there's that possibility.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

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

I've never suggested that this would be scuttled as a consequence of this motion, but there's a consequence here beyond the legalities of the House of Commons. The consequence is--and this is what I was saying at the last meeting about what is in the best interest of taxpayers--if you have a majority of members in the House expressing a lack of support for it--and, as you've said at this committee, we know the Liberals in the past supported this policy, just 18 months ago--and it's a minority Parliament--and who knows how long minority Parliaments last--this could have a serious consequence on the ability of the federal government to get the best taxpayers' dollars as we are marketing the buildings as we speak. There is a financial consequence to doing this in terms of our negotiating position as far as getting bids for these government buildings goes. There's a consequence. That's the concern.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Mr. Kramp, you're next.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

I want to expand very briefly on Mr. Moore's statement. If we were starting from square one and this weren't in process and activities hadn't taken place, this could totally compromise the extent to which offers could come in or might not have come in.

Beyond that, another point I would like to make is that there isn't one person in this committee who's an expert in this field. At least, I don't know one person on this committee who is a total expert in this field. We've all had various degrees of experiences in property management and/or business, but what we did was listen to experts. We had many expert witnesses in, and without exception, every expert witness testified that this would be an appropriate process to follow at this time.

That's why I'm deeply concerned that here we are as a committee throwing this up, and going this way now flies right in the face of the testimony of any witness we have had here. Particularly, following through on Mr. Walsh's comments, this motion almost insults our process, in that regardless of who is there, as Mr. Walsh said, there is a reasonable expectation of that person's acting in a responsible manner as a parliamentarian and as an official. Quite obviously this says, basically, “We don't think you are.”

In the face of the testimony that's already been given, I find that a little incredible. Had we heard conflicting testimony; if we had four against three this way, or there had been conflicting arguments, or there had been people who were suspect and weren't really straight about this.... But every bit of testimony we've had here has supported this argument and this position and this direction of the government. That's why I'm a little bit concerned that here we are at the eleventh hour now, literally at the eleventh hour—

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Mr. Bonin.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Actually, I'm on the list next.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

You weren't, but that's okay.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I was, because I put up my hand, whether you recognized it or not.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

I saw it, but I didn't realize you were asking me to be on the list.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

You did see me; you just didn't want to write it down.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

It's true, I did see him, but I didn't think he was asking to speak. I thought he was just telling me he knew everything.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Can I speak now?

There's no need to state the obvious.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead. You have the floor.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

The argument that we ought not be concerned with the confidentialities that are at stake here because the motion is not enforceable is really a sign of disrespect for the House. What does it say about us if we pass a motion, possibly knowing that it's not good for the country, on the grounds that it can't be enforced?

If it were enforceable, if someone might actually listen to it, then it would be bad, but because it's not enforceable, let's pass it. That's the logic I seem to be hearing, and that is a sign of disrespect to the House.

If the members in this committee honestly believed that the request in this motion would be good for Canada if it were to be implemented, then I'd respect their decision to vote for it; that I could understand. To vote for it because, while it's not good for the country or the taxpayer, it won't be implemented is a self-defeating exercise that shows disrespect for the House of Commons.

Second, there are confidentialities at stake here. I honestly don't believe members over there want to see confidentialities come out that would be detrimental to the Canadian taxpayer. I'm not seeing conspiracies around every corner here.

I would just suggest that the members who are pushing this motion simply amend it to list the precise information they would like to see. If they're not interested in seeing confidentialities, then just say we would like to see specific studies that have been done on the general nature of leasebacks, etc. Just list what it is you're looking for, and then I don't see any problem with the motion.

Perhaps it would be even simpler just to say “that doesn't violate confidentiality provisions in existing government contracts or contracts with suppliers”, or something of that sort, just to demonstrate that this is a good-faith motion designed to enlighten legislators in making a better decision, and not an attempt by a parliamentary committee to infringe upon the confidentiality interests of government and the private sector.

I'm offering a suggestion to those who are pushing this motion that they might limit its impact to areas that are not touched by confidentiality, and that they do so explicitly. Then the motion has a better chance of being followed.

The only other alternative is to put forward something that we know cannot be implemented. Perhaps many people who are voting for the motion don't even want it to be implemented; they're voting for it because they know that it won't be implemented. That is a self-defeating proposition.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have a point of order.

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

I have a point of order. I believe that was a totally inappropriate statement and an inappropriate insinuation. That was not what was at all--

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau

That isn't really a point of order, but while we're on the point of order, I want to ask whether anybody has further questions for Mr. Walsh. Do we allow him to leave?