Evidence of meeting #4 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 tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Registrar, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
Yes, if it was referred to us.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Sorry, yes, you'd handle it with that proviso.
I'm actually speaking about a case that I have a file on. This is someone whose employment was terminated in July 2007. There is a thread to the termination that's not solely based on events that happened from July 2007 back to when you came into force in April. So that's a short window. Some of the variables of the case go beyond April 2007. Obviously I don't want you to judge on it--you wouldn't tell me that--but are you able to deal with cases that go beyond April 2007?
Registrar, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
So before April of 2007?
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes. This person's employment was terminated in July 2007. The act has come into force, but there are many layers and there are other variables that go beyond April 2007. The actual termination of employment of this person, this individual, is July 2007.
So is this something that would be looked at? And I understand that you're not going to tell me what would happen.
Senior Legal Advisor, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
It's a good legal question.
I can tell you that considering the act came into force on April 15, and the person has 60 days to submit a complaint to the commissioner to investigate it and possibly have that case come to the tribunal, technically speaking, it is 60 days starting on April 15.
I would assume--avec réserve, of course--that if the facts happened before the coming into force of the act...but the moment his right was created to submit a complaint, it was after the coming into force of the act. Technically it may be possible that we have to...or not us, but the commissioner will deal with the case and may refer it to us.
That question may be interesting to ask the commissioner as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Ms. Lacroix and Ms. Sylvestre.
Good luck in future years.
We'll take a two-minute break, then we'll be back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
I think everyone is back in their seats and the guests have left.
Mr. Holland.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mrs. Chair.
I'm introducing a motion. There are some contextual clauses that are before the operative clauses. Those are simply for the benefit of the committee. I'm not introducing them as part of the motion. The motion is simply on the operative clauses.
I know the committee has reviewed this before. In fact there were many hearings with respect to the leaseback real estate plan that had been proposed by the government for initially nine properties and potentially some 31 more. The committee had expressed concern and asked that a moratorium be placed. The committee had also requested a great deal of information that wasn't forthcoming from Public Works and Government Services, and a lot of that information is still outstanding. However, some has come in dribs and drabs, and has been analysed and raised a lot of concerns.
Nine properties were supposed to be sold, and seven were. An injunction came forward that stopped two of the properties because there were not sufficient discussions with the Musqueam Nation, and there were interests there. That forced the government to stop the sale of those two properties.
Secondly, the concern on a go-forward basis is to look at that and see what kind of value has been obtained for the seven that were sold, to understand what the cost implications are for the two that are not. The question is, what is the intent of the government on a go-forward basis on those properties? Another concern is that there are 31 buildings that are considered for phase two, some of which are heritage buildings located within the national capital. Obviously, that raises a significant number of concerns, certainly on this side.
In that regard, I think it's appropriate that we return to look at this matter, that we have hearings, that we ascertain the costs--what kind of value for dollar was received in this deal that was concocted with Larco Investments--and also to look ahead.
I realize there was some confusion, for example, when we talk about the 31 additional buildings. Some of them are on one property, with multiple buildings on one property. Sometimes there is a little confusion about how many buildings we're talking about. But certainly before there's any further action taken on this, we need to see what's happened and ensure that we're getting appropriate value for our dollar going forward.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
It would start at the first operative clause, “It is moved that...”, and would include as well the part that begins with, “And that....”
Those would be the operative portions. The contextual “whereas” clauses are simply there for the benefit of the committee.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Just to clarify, we can call the question, because this will pass unanimously. We'll support it. We're fine to do that.
The only caveat I would add is that I'm glad Mr. Holland took out the whereas clauses, because almost all of them are factually incorrect. But that's okay; the purpose of this is to have the minister come before the committee.
The only information we haven't given to the committee is information that would be illegal to give to the committee. Anyhow, we are more than prepared to put forward any information that is not illegal.
Minister Fortier is a good starting point, I guess. He'll be here December 5. This coincides with the minister coming before our committee. I welcome Mr. Holland's first opportunity to ask questions. We have already had the minister before the committee four times on the subject, and he'll have his first kick at the can.
I call the question.
Liberal
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to add to the motion. There are a couple of things I'd like to see in this motion before I would support it.
The first point would be to amend it to look at what the government's plans are--because we've sold the buildings, or a couple anyhow--to provide financial assistance to municipalities that will be or are affected by the sell-off of federal public buildings.
In my community right here in Ottawa, the City of Ottawa will receive $4 million less just because of the sell-off of two buildings.
I'd like to put that down on the motion.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
If I may, this came from the City of Ottawa, actually. It's not something I concocted. In the short term, the City of Ottawa receives payment in lieu of taxes from the federal government. It's a direct payment.
When these buildings go onto the private market, the regime changes so some of the taxes will go to the City of Ottawa, the rest will go to Toronto for education taxes. What that means to the City of Ottawa just for the two buildings is a net loss of $4 million.
If this is an unintended consequence, which often happens in these affairs, I think it's an important item that should be addressed. And it might be affecting other municipalities, I have no idea. I know that's the case in Ontario.
A certain woman by the name of Marion Dewar, who was mayor of Ottawa, fought and won the payment in lieu of taxes from one Jean Chrétien in 1978. This is a little history. But I want to make sure when we sell off these buildings, we obviously disagree with him entirely that there's not going to be a further hit to municipalities.
Right now, a debate is raging, as you know, in the City of Ottawa in terms of how much we have to raise our property taxes. Another $4 million is going to hurt. If we sell off all the buildings, it's calculated as a $25 million hit.
So I'd like to add that to the motion.
The other thing I want to add are the plans of the previous government on this file. It's my understanding that this idea didn't start with this government, so I'd like to open up the discussion or the study, or whatever you want to call this, to any plans the previous government had regarding the sale and leaseback of federal public buildings; whoever was responsible.
So I want to amend the motion accordingly, adding, “Any plans the previous government had regarding the sale and leaseback of federal public buildings”.
The second amendment would add, “Plans the government has to provide financial assistance to municipalities that will be affected by the sell-off of federal public buildings”.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I agree with the issue that Mr. Dewar raises. I saw the transcript of the press conference he held with the municipal politicians. We want to get those facts cleared up.
So let's use whatever tight language we can--something like, “The concerns raised by the City of Ottawa or any other municipality”--
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
--“regarding this can be discussed”, or whatever.
The clerk knows this; it's fine.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I have just a word of committee to the committee. And this is great, not a problem at all. My only thought is that we have already gone through extensive meetings on this issue. I have no problem broaching new material, new subjects, new ideas, new criticisms, new perspectives, but then let's do our homework.
The blues are all there, from the many meetings that have already been held on this issue. Let's not have ministers and their witnesses in here repeating the same process, with the same questions we've already had answers for.
Let's not waste the committee's time. Let's get on to progressive work.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think that would be appropriate. Certainly, it would be a good idea to bring forward that previous information, and perhaps the research staff could compile it and make sure it's distributed in advance of our hearing witnesses on this.
In terms of property taxes, one of the things we hear from municipalities is that payment in lieu of taxes gives them less than property taxes. Again, I'm not saying I agree with this, but what should happen in this instance of a sale is that the municipality, instead of receiving a payment in lieu of property taxes, should actually receive the property taxes. So while I have a lot of concerns, I don't have that particular one, because I think it may actually be demonstrated that it comes out in a wash at the least, or where the municipality's ahead.
That said, I don't have a problem with having it on the table, at least to clear the air on it. If that isn't an issue, then we can focus on those things that are issues.
In terms of going back further, the question I would have is what would be the intended purpose? Clearly there were discussions in the previous government—no one disputes the fact— about the possibility of the sale of federal properties. Those were discussions; there was never anything that materialized or anything beyond that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
There was a request for proposal that had been posted on MERX. It was very far, wide...anyway, that's what happened.