Government Operations Committee on March 17th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're moving out of in camera and into a discussion about motions. I believe there are a couple of motions to be brought forward by committee members. I'd now allow committee members to do that.

Are there any committee members who would like to move motions?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, as a matter of fact. Thank you very much.

I have two motions to move. Do the committee members want me to read them? One of the motions is almost identical to one that was already brought forward, except for a few changes. Both motions were handed out. Do the committee members want me to read them before I move them?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Maybe you can just specify which one you're moving.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

One at a time? Okay.

I will propose my motion that starts with, “That the Committee recommend to the Auditor General to undertake an audit of the $1.4 billion disposition of seven commercial real estate properties...”.

Again, this one has not changed. It's the same as distributed in the notice quite a long time ago.

Do the members wish me to read it out loud?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No. It seems to me that everybody has read it.

Is there any conversation or are there comments with regard to this motion before we go to a vote?

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'd like to table the motion. Here's why. For members of the committee who don't know, just about two and a half years ago, Deutsche Bank did an extensive assessment of the sale of these properties. The reason I'd like to defer this vote, to table it, is that I'd like to ask that the Deutsche Bank report be tabled for our review before we ask the Auditor General--which we can still do, by the way--to undertake a review.

I don't know how and where this might fit into her calendar of things. I'm sure she's not looking for things to do. But it would seem to me that if we could have the Deutsche Bank report tabled for the committee's review, and I mean immediately, so that can we look at it.... If it satisfies us as a committee, terrific, and if it doesn't, then I would invite Madam Hall Findlay to bring it right back and work from there. But I would appreciate it and I would ask that the report be tabled to this committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madam Bourgeois.

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

I am very much in favour of this motion for the simple reason that the committee studied the sale of those seven properties two years ago. One of our researchers was here then. It was indeed Deutsche Bank and, I believe, the Bank of Montreal that had recommended to the government to go ahead with the sale of the seven properties. What I really like about the motion is where it talks about looking especially into the efficacy of the business case. I am happy about that. We want to know whether there was a business case for the government to sell these properties. That is what they told us at the time, and I remember the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals asking for a moratorium on the sale of the seven properties because we did not know where the government was going.

I would be very happy if we could move forward with this motion because it confirms what we have always asked for here, that is, whether there are business cases justifying the government's actions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps to just follow up on what Madam Bourgeois was talking about, I think it really gets down to the heart of this particular motion. I think it's in part just due to a philosophical approach to property management.

If you look at the private sector, you'll see that there are many companies that have embraced actuarial accounting, which views properties as a long-term liability and relinquishes themselves of that asset for the purposes of having a company that's strictly in the business of doing property management.

In order to actually improve buildings for environmental standards...they tend to change over time. So by having a property manager, most actuarial accountants argue that it's a proven fact--and I'm not a mathematician--that, over time, putting property management into the hands of businesses that deliver that service actually saves money.

That's the viewpoint of Deutsche Bank. It's the philosophical viewpoint that I have, having spent a little bit of time in that sector. I think that's probably where we're seeing a divide here. It's the philosophical approach that's being taken, so I think we're very likely going to have the same result on this vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We have Patrick Brown, Martha Hall Findlay, and then Madam Bourgeois who all want to get on the speaking list.

Mr. Holder, I'm told we do have a copy of that report from Deutsche Bank, but it is quite thick and it came in just English. We don't have the French translation. We probably won't, at least immediately, be able to circulate that to committee members; however, I suspect there are probably other ways people could get hold of the English version.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Just to agree with what Mr. Bruinooge said, I do think it would be valuable for those who are interested to see that bank report.

We should recognize that we don't need a motion for the Auditor General to look into something. If she wanted to look into it, she could certainly look into it. It's not a necessity for our committee to do that.

I'm sure a year ago, if she felt it necessary to do so, it would have been done. Obviously, she has her time constraints, given her busy schedule and numerous reports. I just hope we don't try to tie her hands on work she does have to do, given this hasn't sparked interest, and given the report of the bank that clearly suggests that it made sense.

In terms of the philosophical angle that Mr. Bruinooge mentioned, it's interesting to note that the provincial Liberal government has recently said they are looking at the same approach of selling assets and getting out of that business. So it appears that more governments around the country are using that approach and recognizing that if it's working nationally, it can certainly be adopted in provincial capitals. I'm sure that's one of the reasons why Mr. McGuinty has taken that approach as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Having sat through all of the hearings surrounding this, and of course our committee moved forward believing it was a good idea at the time, I don't want to reconstruct the committee divisions on this particular issue. I just put that out there: we don't want to reconstruct the hearings that this committee heard in the past. If members want to continue this dialogue, I'm happy to do that.

I believe we have Madam Hall Findlay first, and then Madam Bourgeois.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I hate to break it to my colleagues, but I will be the first one in line to say a sale leaseback makes sense if the numbers make sense. This has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy or ideology. I will repeat, if the numbers make sense, I will be the first one to recommend that the government dispose of assets--if it makes sense financially on a long-term basis.

I understand the committee looked at it before it was actually done. With all due respect to my colleague, there is interest. There has been significant concern about whether, in fact, the results of those dispositions and the sale leasebacks have, in fact, fulfilled the promise that they appeared to show, which is why they went ahead in the first place.

This is not philosophical, it's not ideological. As a former business person, I can tell you it is entirely to determine whether, in fact, the government got, and is getting, the best return for taxpayers.

With all respect, this has nothing to do with philosophy. You're looking at somebody who would be the first one to say, “Do it, as long as the numbers make sense.” So disabuse yourselves of that particular line of thinking.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Madam Bourgeois.

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

I would just like to request a vote, Mr. Chair.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We sure can.

Nobody else has comments or concerns?

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Just one final comment.

I appreciate Madam Hall Findlay's comment on this, because I'm a business person first too, which is why, again, before I would engage or ask the Auditor General.... I suppose it's her choice to either take this on as a project or not. But I've not seen that report. I know there are people around this table who have not seen the Deutsche Bank report. I do have some confidence in them as an organization, but I want to see that report before I would undertake to use government resources, including those of the Auditor General, to do that.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask that, and defer that. So that is my wish.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I think we could put everyone's mind at rest. The Auditor General is not compelled to do anything that is not in her bailiwick or believed to be an issue.

Let's call the question.

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion is carried.

Are there any other motions? I believe there's possibly one more at the table.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

There is, in fact, Mr. Chair, thank you.

I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting my earlier motion.

Once again I will ask my colleagues if they would like me to read--

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I apologize, Madam Hall Findlay.

I have a point of order, please. I don't know how this will be translated back to the Auditor General. How will that be communicated to the Auditor General? How does that work, please--on the prior motion? I don't understand it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

On the point of order, I believe what would happen is the chair would write a letter on behalf of the committee stating that there had been a vote and this was the motion. The chair would write to the Auditor General. I suspect that she may write us a letter back.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Just as an extension of that, when that goes through, is it that the committee has done this, or that there was a split vote?

How does that get communicated?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I believe it will be that the motion was carried at the committee. We didn't specify--