Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We're on debate.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Exactly.

We didn't get the information we were requesting. You can use the argument of confidentiality to a certain extent. At the same time we have to have balance. I think Madame Bourgeois hit it right on the head when she said that we also have responsibility, as members of Parliament, to make informed decisions.

He was telling us basically, “Take my word for it. We're a bunch of private sector people on cabinet and we'll make the right decisions. We'll come back to you with information later on.” He said, “We'll give you all the information once the decision is done.” Well, I'm sorry, we're ultimately responsible. Once the decision is done and the deal has gone through, if it's a bad deal--it may not be--who are they going to come back on? They're going to come back on the committee that was responsible for oversight of this deal.

If you have five or six or seven members of the committee who are still not satisfied with the information we've received, it seems to me that everybody on the committee should be concerned.

Does that make sense?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Chair, I want to correct a couple of statements that were made earlier, that no other government...and that he couldn't give us any other examples of positive outcomes of this. Certainly, he did. Many national governments--the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, provinces--have done this, and they have excellent reporting on it. Also, Professor McKellar said that most governments do not do a good job of managing their buildings. We have all kinds of independent information there.

I think if anybody should know that we can't divulge all the information that Mr. Turner would like, it should be Mr. Turner. They're in negotiations. If we divulge this information, it jeopardizes the entire sale.

I don't understand why we're debating this. In the interest of Canadian taxpayers, it's time to move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Moore.

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

I want to make a short comment in response to Mr. Bonin--also my third--and then I'm glad to go back to Madame Bourgeois for her final arguments. And then we can call the question.

I wanted to respond to Mr. Bonin when he said this is just a motion that doesn't really matter and it's not that big a deal. As I said, I think in the second intervention, we are still--

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I said this is only a recommendation.

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

Correct. Yes, it is only a recommendation to the House, but it comes with the imprimatur of a standing committee of Parliament, the majority of whose members....

Now, as I said, we are still in negotiation. We're still receiving bids on nine government buildings. Words matter, votes matter, motions matter. They do have consequences. This is a minority Parliament. Polls go up, polls go down. We have a budget vote tonight. Who knows how long Parliament sits? Who knows who's going to win the next election? These things change dramatically.

It is I think inconceivable to successfully argue that having a vote of a standing committee of Parliament to say that this is not in the best interests of Parliament, that we should cease.... You really don't think that will have a chilling effect on the quality of bids that will come to government for these nine buildings? Of course it will.

The idea that the majority of this committee would suggest we're going to cease this, that it's a bad idea, that we're going to stop doing this because we don't have enough information at the very moment when we're receiving bids...you don't think that's going to have a chilling consequence? I think that's a huge mistake.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

You can change it.

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

I think that's a profound misunderstanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, I want to ask if there is some mechanism we can go to, even further than in camera. Obviously, in camera doesn't work. Is there some kind of personal guarantee that everyone can sign? Obviously we know that the confidentiality of the last meeting was breached. Is there some mechanism that these people can be...?

Madam Chair, or can I just ask the clerk, are we allowed to divulge what happens in camera to other members of Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

To the clerk.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

To the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Bibiane Ouellette]

No, absolutely not. But the member does have the right to see the blues. One copy is locked in my office.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Could you assure us that Mr. Turner was in your office reading the blues?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's none of your business. It's none of your business what--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

No, it is, because the argument has been made.

I think this goes to the heart of it, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ask the member yourself.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Could I do that? Would that be appropriate?

Mr. Turner, did you read the blues of that meeting? Did you go to the clerk's office, and is that where you were briefed?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

None of your business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Okay.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The only reason I believe this cuts to the heart of the matter is that the other side is claiming confidentiality will be assured. Apparently, there was some type of breach even in the last meeting, so how could we have some even more sensitive information come in front of this committee and then not go outside this committee meeting?

I think there was an admission here that he was briefed by somebody, and obviously the confidentiality was breached at the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madam Nash, then Mr. Bonin.

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

I just want to make the point that this is a huge real estate deal that's being proposed. There have been comments made about the size of this, the scale of this. It's really quite massive. And it is a significant departure from what the government has done in the past.

I want to say clearly that I don't think it's up to us to accommodate this. I think it's up to the government to make the case for why this is a good deal. And to say that somehow we are sworn to some locked-down, ironclad secrecy on something where the government, frankly, has not made the case.... Could they make the case? I haven't made a final decision on this, but so far I think it's frankly been insulting to the members of this committee that there hasn't been an effort to be more specific about the positive outcome of this kind of sale.

I want to say first of all that I think the onus is on the government to make the case. Studies are floating around that we have not been privy to that are not specifically part of this deal, that are making the case, that are giving the rationale. There is the study of the banks, for example, that we have never had access to.