Evidence of meeting #12 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I share Mr. Albrecht's concern about our running off on different tangents and about the need to be focused.
I think the issue here, however, is that we have been looking at the issue, the real estate sales. It is an issue we have tried to keep some kind of continuity with. I'm also noticing that it has been suggested that we at least put one day to it in the next cycle of meetings. This is something we have already been in the process of doing. I have written a letter to the Ethics Commissioner, and I'm certainly interested in hearing back from him on their point of view.
However, I think it would be odd for our committee to have another hearing on the real estate transactions when the elephant is in the room with something that has raised serious questions about Public Works staff, a member of the Prime Minister's office, and a big real estate deal in a federal building. Whether or not there's smoke or fire out of that, I don't know, but I would think that if we have a day set aside to look at the real estate issue, to actually look at this would probably be the most realistic use of time.
Whether something comes from it, we can find out from that meeting. But we're already on that path anyway, so I'd just as soon look at it and then move on.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Madam Chair, I think we are ready to vote on the amendment. If possible, could you call the question?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
There's one fundamental issue that we need to remember as a committee, and that is that it's fine for us to study issues of policy—Mr. Kramp mentioned the accrual accounting example. I don't see any problem with two committees studying policies and coming up....
Here we're talking about delving into a specific case that has already been referred to an officer of Parliament who has been appointed by Parliament. It seems to me it would be wise for us, as much as possible, to stay out of looking at those individual issues, as opposed to looking at the broader policy issues, at least until that person has had a chance to respond to us.
We're constantly getting into the minutiae of the administration, when we have officers who are appointed to deal with any misappropriations or misdealing. Our responsibility is to frame policy to help avoid those kinds of scenarios. I think we're getting off on all kinds of rabbit trails.
I really believe it's important that we pass this amendment, so that we wait until after the Ethics Commissioner has reported.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Is there any more debate on the amendment, which is that we not study this issue until after the Ethics Commissioner has had an opportunity to examine and report back?
All those in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
This motion is a fishing expedition, entirely unnecessary. I would request that we do the same thing we're doing on the other fishing expedition about the light rail issue. We should have the committee demonstrate a bit of discretion.This one is worse—it's a fishing expedition of an extraordinary kind. In the last motion we agreed that this issue would be dealt with in a single committee meeting.
We have a witness list here. Each meeting is a full two hours. In respect of the motion by Madame Faille, I don't see why we couldn't deal with all this at one committee meeting. We could place it under the same limits we set in reference to the other motion by Mr. Holland.
We talked about how we don't want this committee to turn into a circus. According to the other motion, we're going to meet in a committee room such as this, without cameras. If members of this committee actually have a serious and substantive question, they don't want the committee turned on its ear for the sake of partisanship. This was the appropriate action taken on that motion.
With regard to this motion, the central questions asked in the newspaper articles had to do with the appropriateness of the lobbying and the relationship of those involved in the meetings. These questions are straightforward and ought to take only one meeting to answer.
I would suggest that we apply the same restraint we've imposed on Mr. Holland's motion to the present motion. We will have it in one meeting, which would last two hours, so we don't sidetrack committee business. We could have it in one two-hour meeting in a room without cameras. This way we wouldn't get into nonsense and soap opera partisanship. We could show some restraint, which I notice that other committees are not managing to summon. But I think we can do it. We will be making the right call.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Is there any other debate on the main motion?
I call the question on the main motion.
(Motion agreed to)
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
The main motion is carried, so we'll see what we can do.
I also think this motion we've just passed fits in with our study of real estate.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
We may need to know what happens with these long-term leases and how we end up in these court cases. I've often been told by Public Works that we're signing this great lease and we're not going to get into trouble. But what happens when people stop maintaining buildings and that kind of thing? It fits into that. Maybe it's something that has to be considered. I'm just adding this, because it has to do with the overall decision of whether to buy outright or lease. I'm not talking about interference or non-interference. I'm just saying it's a topic that fits in with this.
Should we lease long term or should we purchase? Now we find out that these two buildings have been the subject of litigation for 10 years; at least that's what we were told.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Chair, these issues actually have absolutely nothing in common, other than the fact that Michael Fortier has been asked to be a witness in both circumstances. With regard to the sale of government buildings, I guess this could dovetail into my second motion, but actually there is no relation between the two issues. The allegation made in the Globe and Mail, which is the source of Madame Faille's motion, had nothing to do with the sale or lease-back.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I would remind the committee that Minister Fortier has been before us five times—three times for two hours on the issue of the real estate sale—and each time the committee adjourned early because we ran out of questions.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I am going to continue along the same lines as you, Madam Chair.
When we continue our work on the sale of federal buildings, I would like us to have information on two of them. Apparently, their plumbing is inadequate and the buildings are very old. It also seems that some employees are housed in them. We had not really dealt with that situation, because we did not know what the problem was.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The motion everybody has before them is just an attempt to actually codify what the clerk circulated to us last week, which was the order of business that the committee has already agreed to.
The first one on February 12 is cleaning up what we've already begun to study. The second one speaks to what Madame Bourgeois just said two moments ago with regard to the real estate plan.
We already have witnesses lined up on every single one of these days who have already made the commitment to be here, to set aside their time to prepare their presentation. All I'm asking with this motion, frankly, is just for certainty of planning.
We know we're conceivably going into an election time here, and I think some of us would like to have some clear understanding of what this committee is going to be dealing with in the coming couple of weeks. So that's all this was, an idea, because we were debating last week about what was coming up and what wasn't. Every single one of these dates is already cemented, if you will.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Yes, precisely. These were all issues that were discussed at this committee last week, about how we need to focus and make sure we're respecting the motions that have already been passed by this committee, and that's all this motion is an attempt to do.
Therefore, I move the motion.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
My question is for Mr. Moore, but also for our research officers. At the moment, we are studying the turnover rate of public servants, but then some compensation advisors came to see us and told us about a serious problem. I would like to know if the compensation advisors are included in this file. I do not want to let anything get by us. We do not have much time, and I am wondering whether the term "geographic distribution" is the best one to use, or whether we ought to use the words "turnover rate of federal public servants and compensation advisors". I do not know any more.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Perhaps we forgot to include that in the motion. We should report on the whole question of compensation. I think we could ask our research officer to prepare a document for us to study. This is an important matter on which it should be possible for us to agree.