Government Operations Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Limited--

[Deborah Bourque]

Sorry.

Geoff, did you have something to add to that?

[Geoff Bickerton]

I just wanted to add that there's a real equity issue here in what you're identifying. In the urban areas we have letter carriers every day, somewhere in the country, who go back to their office and say they have a household at which the steps have become rotten, or they have a household at which the dogs are not tied up, and the response of Canada Post is not to shut down delivery for the whole route. The response of Canada Post is to deal with the single individual health and safety problem that's been identified. I think what you're saying is that quite often our members have been identifying individual residences that have a health and safety problem, but what's happened is that the delivery has been shut down to a much greater area.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

On the issue of urban delivery, in urban centres situated within rural areas, postal carriers will walk up a set of stairs or take an elevator to deliver mail to other levels in commercial buildings, yet they won't walk down the road. When constituents phone the postmaster, they're told that the union forbids them to deliver on different levels of certain commercial buildings.

So again, my question is, would that be a safety issue, to refuse delivery to different levels of buildings where there are no rotten stairs, or...?

[Deborah Bourque]

I would suspect that's the way the route has been structured. Some routes are structured such that you deliver to mailboxes in the box lobby. Some routes are structured such that you deliver door to door in the apartment building or the business building. I can't imagine that we would have the right to refuse to deliver in those cases. It depends on how the route is structured.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Does the union play a role in determining the route structure, or is that dictated by Canada Post management?

[Deborah Bourque]

We have a role to play in that we are permitted to have observers when routes are restructured. We have the right under the collective agreement to review the information, but it's ultimately the route measurement officer from Canada Post who does the actual building of the walk. We take those opportunities when routes are being restructured to argue that door-to-door delivery should be put in place and people should go to every door.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

We've finished the time. You've had almost six minutes now. We're down to five, and we have another motion to debate. I'm sorry.

Before you leave, I would hope that after we were really in favour of seeing these contractors unionized, we don't now see the demise of postal service in the rural areas. I'm extremely concerned, and I would hope that you would work with management to ensure that this stops, because it's just happening too much. If we have one message to send you, it's that we have to find a way to continue that delivery service. It's absolutely essential to this country.

[Deborah Bourque]

If I have one message to leave you, it's that we're absolutely committed to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We'll give the same message to management when they come.

Thank you very much.

Now, rather than break, we will go to the motion right away.

Mr. Alghabra, would you like to move your motion?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Yes. I just want to preface by saying that last week we had witnesses to the committee talk about Public Works' responsibilities in managing the facilities that several government departments look after, and we looked at certain scenarios in which perhaps the government or the administration could have spent taxpayers' money better or more efficiently. I want to take the opportunity to assert the committee's recommendation in holding the department to and reminding the department of its responsibility to manage taxpayers' money.

I am proposing this motion, and it reads:

That the Committee report to the House that it recommends that the acquisition, by purchase or lease, of any significant property, such as the former JDS Uniphase campus in Ottawa by the Government of Canada for use by its departments and agencies, be the result of a competitive public call for tenders process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Is there any debate?

I'll go to Madame Thibault, and then I'll go to Mr. Kramp.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I only wanted to have some clarification. I don't know if this is the right time but you'll tell me.

When I compare the English and French versions of the motion, I see that with we're talking in English of "significant property"--and there's an example in the motion--relating to what is called real estate? In French, it's not the same thing at all. They're talking of "biens considérables", which means considerable goods. I'm sure that the translators can do better than me but I believe that this should be replaced by "des biens immobiliers d'importance". That's the amendment I would suggest for the French version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You're absolutely right.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

In English, I would suggest "significant real estate property", unless Mr. Alghabra wants it to apply to any type of property, whether it be airplanes, ships or helicopters, which would be different. In that case, someone might come back with another motion on those issues. However, if we want to talk about really estate only, I would suggest that amendment. Obviously, I will accept the decision of our interpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

So, it would read "biens immobiliers d'importance". Does everybody agree with that change?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Done. Thank you.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm sorry, I'm not finished. That amendment related to the words used.

About the motion itself, I agree with it for three reasons. First, one can't be against virtue. We hear a lot of talk about transparency, with good reason. It is essential. Second, this will lead, I hope--and I referred it to it when we discussed Canada Post--to equal treatment. Obviously, I'm referring here to equal treatment of bidders. I mentioned it during our last meeting. When there is a competitive bid, property owners from both sides of the river who want to rent or sell to the government want to be able to participate. When I look at the situation about which we've received lots of information, I believe it will be necessary at some point to do a study. If we operate in this manner, there will be less need in the future to carry out studies about the past. We would be protected, and taxpayers would be protected.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd actually like to make a few comments in opposition to this motion.

Madam Thibault, touching on the amendment that you made on the wording, right off the bat, what is significant property? How are we going to define it? What are the parameters going to be? Is it $1 million, $2 million, $5 million, $10 million, or $100 million? What are we going to set it at, and who's going to make those decisions?

One concern I have with this motion is that it's certainly open-ended. Where are we going to go? We can run off in a witch hunt or we can actually accomplish something. That's one point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, I know your concerned, but there are some very strict rules within Public Works on what goes to tender, in what amounts, and so on. It's not as big a challenge as you think.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

That's fine. I appreciate the intervention, Madam Chair.

My next point will perhaps lead us right there.

Like my colleague, I have no difficulty at all with openness and transparency. I think we've all seen too much of that, and we're all clearly focused on preventing it from happening again.

[A voice]

It's corruption, not transparency.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

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.