Thank you. It's corruption. I don't want to go down that path.
We heard testimony last week, and this motion flies right in the face of testimony from our ministers and deputy ministers. We heard on many occasions that the exception is not the norm. This takes away the latitude.
Madam Chair, you were a minister. When unique occasions like this would come up, you and other ministers would be responsible. What should we do? Should we now call all of the past ministers who have made decisions like this? Many decisions have been made by the previous government in a like-minded process. Do we go back and look at all of their decisions to see if every one did not follow one of these potential exceptions? A number of these potential exceptions could have a negative impact for the present government on that deal.
I'd quickly make three or four little points.
One is the fact that this was not a regular market opportunity. This was an unsolicited proposal that came forward to the government in which all of a sudden the information came to them. They then had an obligation to take a look at this, and it was not through the normal market procedure, right off the bat.
I think we all recognize that it's a unique facility. These are not dime a dozen, routine warehouses or another building that has to house another ministry. The demands of this particular ministry are absolutely off the wall, and they need particular requirements. It's why we have a bureaucracy in place, and it's why we have public works, to evaluate all of those circumstances and situations to see if it's something that should be brought forward.
Madam Chair, there are also a number of occasions when we have an existing building, and sometimes it can be a bargain. If you're going to go through the entire process of tendering, planning, building, designing, and construction, the cost-effectiveness can be absolutely onerous.
We basically have a building per se that could be bought for a few cents on the dollar or a few dollars on the dollar, whatever the quantification would be, but the bottom line, obviously, is that it's not at market price. We all know this, and the deputy minister replied. This is not a $600 purchase building. That's the figure that has been bandied about.
We all recognize the enormous costs involved, particularly when you have a department that has very serious demands, particularly with regard to security. We also have a schedule situation that definitely comes to bear on this.
In a competitive bidding process there are many people who might wish to be involved in this process. Sometimes the early bird catches the worm, and you're able to reach out and make a decision. In this particular case, a decision was reached by Public Works to be able to proceed with this.
This is not a decision made in isolation, and this is not a decision that is not open for public scrutiny. This is a decision that they will be held accountable to. The minister and the parliamentary secretary have already stated that this decision, if and when it has been ratified by cabinet, will come back to the committee and the House for scrutiny.
As well, we are aware that the Auditor General has already been asked to look into this matter and is in the middle of the process right now to fully evaluate this procedure.
To step in right now, throw a carte blanche across it, and tie the hands of this government or any future government at any particular time while seeking the best-value deal for this country, I believe is not fair to Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, or anywhere.
Your motion is a bad business decision, Mr. Alghabra. You're in business, and I've been a business person. Your motion is not good business. Quite honestly, Public Works is in the business of providing a value-for-dollar acquisition for this country.
Good business is making sound business decisions, at the right time, in the right place, taking into account all of the exceptions that have come forward before previous ministers of previous governments, and we should be aware that this process was--to their credit--established under the previous government. They're the ones who initiated this process for this deal, the previous government from which you bring forward the motion.
I find that mind-boggling. You're basically saying that our previous government didn't know what they were doing. Well, quite honestly, there are occasions when I would certainly hope that your previous ministers were able to pass some judgment and the deputy minister and the departments had some form of responsibility.
We all want openness and transparency. To my mind, there are plenty of avenues for that. The minister has stated as much. We will have the Auditor General's report on this issue, and we have ministerial responsibility, as dictated also by public accounts and now back before the House.
I feel that this basically might be well-intentioned and it sounds good, a motherhood issue, that we want transparency, and I have no difficulty with transparency, but you don't want to make a bad decision sometimes simply to play up political optics. To my mind, that, with all respect, is what this is.
Let's make a sound decision for this country. Let's get rid of the political optics and the political machinations here, and let's deal with this issue before us.
Thank you.