Thank for travelling to meet with us, Mr. Walsh.
First of all, I want to restate a little what I said at our last meeting. It must be clearly understood that this motion does not bear the colour of a party; it is not intended to be partisan. Nor is it a motion designed to prevent the sale of these buildings at all cost. Its purpose is simply to demand that we be provided with the information we need to do our work as members properly.
We have held four meetings of one and a half or two hours on these buildings. However, we have never been able to obtain the desired information. I find that quite pathetic. This is a matter of respect. You ask me what information I'm talking about. I'll give you an example. In 2003, a deputy minister at Public Works Canada appeared before this committee and said she had planning results indicating that the government was an efficient property manager. From what she said, the salaries of the employees who were sorting out those buildings was the only inefficient aspect.
The minister left telling us that the government was not a good property manager. I asked him on what he based that statement, but he did not answer me. We tried to determine even just a small percentage of the amount paid to the banks. We also wanted to know what would be done with the money from the sale of the buildings. Those people never gave us the slightest information about any planning concerning that money. They told us that it would be used to reconstruct other buildings, but without specifying the actual cost of those repairs. They told us they did not have a plan and did not know which direction to take on this issue.
I would like to point out to you that the money from the sale of those nine buildings also belongs to Quebeckers. If you are not accountable to Canadians, I am accountable to Quebeckers. I want my questions answered. I don't want to exceed my rights, but I want answers.
The second time the minister came and testified before this committee, we literally wasted our time. Everything is always confidential. I believe we are able to hold our tongues. We know just how far we can go. It's not a matter of boycotting the minister or the sale of buildings. It's simply a matter of respect for us as parliamentarians, our accountability and the Liability Act, under which we have obligations.