Transport Committee on March 28th, 2007

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Tassé, perhaps I could follow that up.

[Roger Tassé]

I'm sorry, I don't want to take too much of your time.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No. That's okay. I will just follow up on that.

You have practised law for a long time, I assume.

[Roger Tassé]

In my career I've done a lot of things. I practised law in the last few years. I've been in the Department of Justice. I was deputy minister. I've had a long and very interesting and fascinating career. I have touched on all kinds of matters. This is the first time I've touched on the port authority.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let me ask you this. During your career, certainly as a lawyer, had you ever been accused of lacking objectivity?

[Roger Tassé]

Quite the reverse. I think over my career I have shown I have an independent mind. I worked for Mr. Trudeau for many years as his deputy minister at the time of the charter. I worked for Mr. Clark for a few months. I worked for Mr. Mulroney as deputy minister, but also as a counsellor on constitutional issues.

So I think I have been recognized as being able to make up my own mind. When I talked to the Department of Transport, they knew I had a mind of my own, that I would come to my own conclusions. I am prepared to discuss, I am prepared to listen, I am prepared to consider the views of the people, but I can make up my own mind.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

As your report suggests, is it fair to say that a lot of the problems between the city and the port authority were exacerbated with the election of 2003? Your report makes some reference to that being a defining moment in this conflict.

[Roger Tassé]

Well, yes, I think there were comments.... I understand that when people are in political situations and so on, there are words said that may be heard with a different meaning than was intended. I think there were comments, but this was quickly corrected in the later weeks and months.

I'm referring to Mr. Martin, when he was asked at the convention--or after, I'm not sure--on November 12, what he would do now with the airport; Mr. Miller had been elected and he was against the bridge. And he said they would take their cue from the city.

I think some people thought this would be a very radical change. Mr. Martin was not in the government at the time; he had not taken office. The actions of the federal government before that were not leaning in that direction at all. But it left the impression that Toronto would dictate what the government should do.

This turned out to be not as nuanced as it could have been. There were ministers who intervened later to say that if a party to an agreement decides that it will quit the agreement, surely you expect that party to assume the cost of their decisions. But Mr. Miller was not prepared at all to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Zed.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I want to say that it's a real honour to have Mr. Tassé before our committee.

As the Canadian Bar representative, I had the great privilege of working with Mr. Tassé in 1988, when we presented to the Mulroney commission on ethics--the Holtmann commission on lobbying. It is really a great privilege to have you here.

Mr. Tassé, since you've been involved with this for some period of time now, would you comment on why no compensation was paid to the only air carrier at the facility at the time the contract was cancelled, and why compensation was paid to another party when all they had was a business plan? I'm specifically talking about the harm that Air Canada might have received. Wouldn't it be logical that some compensation would be due and owed them because they were an operating airline at the time? I noticed that Deluce and Porter received some financial incentives.

I wonder if you would comment on that.

[Roger Tassé]

I don't think there's much I can say. While they had a relationship with the TPA, they were not using it very much. I don't know what their claim would have looked like, but I've not heard that there were any claims.

I met with the president of the airline, and this was not raised. He was complaining about something else.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I'm offering up three minutes to Mr. Volpé.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpé has three minutes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Tassé, thank you very much for being so forthright. Let me provide for comment some other observations.

I think in your study you found that the City of Toronto never passed a motion rescinding the previous three decisions to build a bridge. There was a resolution to ask the Government of Canada to not build the bridge if a certain series of conditions were met. It's important to know how you read that.

Secondly, I think you were asked about whether permits were available or not. Would you clarify for us whether in fact you saw that the permits were released in the month of January and whether they were available before the month of January? That is, the allegation has often been made that they were issued—I'm talking about the water permits, and so on—only after the election, to spite certain people, but they were available and they had not been released, and the Government of Canada had no legal authority to withhold the permits that had been provided by DFO.

Then, thirdly, I wonder if you could comment, in the very brief time that you have, because you have been so forthright with my colleague Mr. Zed, about the fact that Air Canada wasn't part of the legal action and that's why they didn't get any compensation, that in fact the Government of Canada had said it would take its cue from city council, and city council did not say, “Please cancel the bridge”, because it was a party to the signature that went on the contract to build the bridge, and therefore, they didn't want to be liable to a legal suit. That's the reason that doesn't come out very often.

So I compliment you on your quick response when those who were partisan responded so negatively to your report. They're not normally accustomed to truth and straightforward talk. Distortion and dissembling is a hallmark of some of those councillors who, when they were operating the Toronto Harbour Commission, found themselves in violation of everybody's definition of ethics and law and are the most surprised people in the world because they're not in jail.

So would you also give us an indication of how long those lands were held in a disgraceful manner by the people at city council? That's what led to that marine act, to reorganize the structuring of all those territories.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Tassé, very briefly.

[Roger Tassé]

I'm not sure I want to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm not sure it was a question. It was certainly a statement.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

There was a question. I think I raised it three times. There were three of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Very briefly, Mr. Tassé, if you want to reply.

[Roger Tassé]

On the question of the cancellation of the decisions, I have not seen anything that shows they had cancelled their previous decisions. Their decisions remain. There were three decisions that remain. That's why, in effect, when—

I'm sorry...?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I wasn't sure if I caught that right. You said there was no evidence that the City of Toronto rescinded its—

[Roger Tassé]

I have not seen anything in the documents I have seen—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

They didn't rescind their decision to actually build the bridge?

[Roger Tassé]

—that they had rescinded the decision, the earlier decision.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Oh my gosh, Ms. Chow is going to be shocked.