Evidence of meeting #143 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was appear.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Brian Kelcey  Vice-President, Public Affairs, Toronto Region Board of Trade

4:35 p.m.

Vice-President, Public Affairs, Toronto Region Board of Trade

Brian Kelcey

It said that Sidewalk received more information than the other parties. On my way here I stopped for coffee, and it took me two minutes to pull up an example from Infrastructure Ontario, which is considered best-in-class in Canada in terms of running complex P3s. It gives individual bidders differential information on complex bids, because you want them to account for different business models. It's not considered preferential treatment.

They do it a little differently from the way Waterfront did it, in terms of holding confidential meetings with each bidding party to let them ask those questions, so it's on the record and you know what's in and what's out. Perhaps Waterfront could do that in the future to provide a steadier process, but nowhere has anybody said that with this RFP there are legal grounds to throw it out.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I'm not saying that. I never said that. I'm saying that when we see that the RFP is for 36 days and the Auditor General says it's extremely short, and then we're told it's the second-largest one ever and they don't know what the Auditor General was talking about, to me that raises questions.

I'm running out of time here. Ms. Di Lorenzo is not here, but she wrote a letter to us to contradict Waterfront Toronto, because the other element is that we were told this had been very well vetted by the real estate committee. These aren't developers; these are people who want to make sure Toronto is getting the best bang for the buck, and she felt it shouldn't have been brought forward because they didn't have ample time.

Right now I don't think any citizen should be trusting Google on anything till they prove their best interests, because of the corporate accountability problems they've been having. Given that it's a controversial project, and given that it's Google, we should be able to get really straight answers. A straight answer to whether there was a problem with the real estate review is yes or no. She felt there was undue pressure. The Auditor General talked about that.

Do you feel that this kind of push to get this thing through dealmaking causes problems down the road for the legitimacy of this project?

4:35 p.m.

Vice-President, Public Affairs, Toronto Region Board of Trade

Brian Kelcey

To be crystal clear, the phrase I used was with reference to city hall conducting land swaps without proper valuation of the land and RFPs that were clearly designed to put certain tangential pieces of land into the mix.

As I said, I read the audit closely, twice. I think there are plenty of legitimate questions out there. I wasn't aware that there's still a discrepancy between the auditor's position and Waterfront's position, but I've certainly read the testimony of Waterfront that the RFP was longer. It will be impossible until all of us are dead, and then some, to improve our fee practices in this country with our different agencies.

With respect to Ms. Di Lorenzo's concerns, and concerns about governance, we're trying to look forward. What we know is that we have supreme confidence in the new chair, Mr. Diamond. We know several of the directors around the table. If there were concerns that they weren't looking at over their shoulder before, you would have seen, as we did with that warning, that the board is taking earnest care to say that they're going to be very careful on due diligence when they get an MIDP. This is ultimately going to be the assessment of whether or not Sidewalk has access to Quayside, let alone whether it has any ability to provide services everywhere else on the site.

Part of what's funny about this whole issue is that, with so many points of decision and gatekeeping ahead of us.... If it was a situation where Sidewalk suddenly won exclusive right to do whatever it wanted on dozens of acres and then submit a price to an appraiser, you'd be hearing different testimony from me right now. Instead, we have a series of processes where, for Sidewalk's sake, I'm actually more worried about the risk of inertia in terms of getting through city development approvals and getting through the MIDP. None of those will necessarily be easy, given what's transpired in the debate now. Since we share a couple of the critics' concerns in terms of issues like data and so forth, we're at the table watching as well as supporting. I hope that makes the process a more positive one for the critics as well as the fans.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Thank you very much.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

Mr. Kelcey, we'd like to thank you for your patience again today and for your testimony. We're going to go into some committee business, just for us, so thanks for coming down today and being with us.

4:40 p.m.

Vice-President, Public Affairs, Toronto Region Board of Trade

Brian Kelcey

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bob Zimmer

We'll suspend for about three or four minutes until the witnesses leave.

[Proceedings continue in camera]