Government Operations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You mentioned the Ethics Commissioner, and I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask Mr. Wouters, who represents the Treasury Board Secretariat, as well as the representatives from the city, if the Ethics Commissioner or people from his office were interviewed on the subject of our meeting here today.

Mr. Wouters.

[Wayne Wouters]

I'll respond in English, Madam Chair.

I was not interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner. I'm not aware that any officials within the Treasury Board Secretariat had any discussions with the Ethics Commissioner on this matter.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Would anyone like to answer on behalf of the City of Ottawa?

Mr. Kirkpatrick.

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

Yes. There was no contact made with the City of Ottawa either, to my knowledge.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madame Chair, I find it absolutely incredible. Having been a commissioner myself, although for the provincial government, I find it incredible that the Ethics Commissioner would have actually given an opinion, a legal opinion, when he had not interviewed any of the people who have been involved directly in this decision.

I would bring to the attention of this committee that my colleague across, Mr. James Moore, seems to be very much on the defensive. We're not asking for Mr. Moore or anyone else to prove a point. We're asking the witnesses who are in front of us to explain the process as they saw it, as they lived through it. We're not asking for a defence mechanism. This is not a court of law.

And speaking of courts of law, I would like to go back to the cities and I would like to go back to the process, because it is a process thing, as I understand it.

My question is for Mr. Kirkpatrick or for Mr. Chartrand.

At any point, did the city fail to meet what was required of them in the MOU of May 9, 2005?

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

No, the city did not. The city, as I've said, also met all information requests in a proactive manner from seven federal government departments in terms of their due diligence as well.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I understand that the intergovernmental working group was constructed flowing from the MOU. For the record, at any point were concerns raised within this group that due diligence was not being performed?

[Réjean Chartrand]

I was the chair of the working group. All of our discussions led me to believe that we had fully met all of the requirements.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

If I understand correctly, it is a question of the seven federal government departments. Is that your opinion, Mr. Chartrand?

[Réjean Chartrand]

Yes, this was required for the approvals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

After Treasury Board dealt with it, did the contract raise any other problems? If so, what were they?

[Réjean Chartrand]

When we brought forward the project, we were dealing with Transport Canada. Our colleagues in the department did not point out anything in particular.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

And Treasury Board did not inform you that there were any difficulties with the contract?

[Réjean Chartrand]

Our only communication with Treasury Board concerned the final decision. That decision stated that funding was contingent on one condition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kirkpatrick would like to say something.

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

Madam Chair, what we did hear from Treasury Board, as Mr. Wouters said earlier today, was that in fact Treasury Board did approve the Transport Canada submission with a condition that did not relate to anything technical or to contractual issues or to the business case that was done by Transport Canada and met the requirements of that department. The condition was...well, we know what the condition was. That was the only issue that was transmitted in terms of the approval of Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Wouters wanted to say something. Did you have something to add?

[Wayne Wouters]

Mr. Kirkpatrick just spoke for me, I think.

I just wanted to clarify for the record, Madam Chair, that the Treasury Board did authorize the Minister of Transport to enter into this contribution agreement to provide up to the $200 million. Again, just to reiterate, this was subject to receiving notice that the new city council supported the project, so all that due diligence was done and the board did approve entering into the contribution agreement.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

May I ask a final question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No, your five minutes have expired.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have two questions, one for Mr. Kirkpatrick and one for Mr. Wouters, but prior to getting to those questions, which I hope would actually take a couple of simple answers, I would like to make a point. The point I would like to mention is it's a sad reality where this committee is finding itself right now. We're simply being what I would call manipulated and playing politics.

This same issue came to the public accounts committee. In their wisdom they didn't want to be involved in a political football and part of a smear campaign. Quite frankly, very quickly, they discounted that and recognized that there was really nothing here, other than, I suppose, partisan politics on behalf of Mr. Holland and the Liberal Party.

Of course then, not wanting to just accept no for an answer, the Liberal Party and Mr. Holland refused to accept even the opinion of the Ethics Commissioner and then the Privacy Commissioner to investigate this matter. Obviously they have access to the reports that were issued by both of those commissioners. I suppose the next thing this committee's going to want, on behalf of Mr. Holland, is perhaps to call in the Privacy Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner to see whether their testimony and their letters on this issue were truthful too.

In other words, where are we going with this? We have a minister who exhibited prudence, transparency, and a sensitivity to the realities of the political situation on the ground in that he did not get involved with making a decision of the middle of an electoral race so as to unduly influence it. I think that is just common sense and good dealing.

In contrast—and this is certainly not an attempt to demean my colleague across the road—Mr. Holland, there was an article written, as a matter of fact, in one of your local papers. I just happened to pick it up the other day. It went something like this: it said “To the editor”, and this is a classic example--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

To the editor.

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

--of the pot calling the kettle black.

But I think it's very important that Mr. Holland and this committee, and the public as well, hear what we're dealing with here. It says:

I have always believed there is no place for party politics in municipal elections. It can be argued, for example, block voting by an NDP-dominated council in the City of Toronto does little to represent the interests of residents on issues of local importance. Party politics in the diverse wards of the City of Pickering

--which, of course, Mr. Holland would be so familiar with--

--would be an even bigger disaster. I was turned off by MP Mark Holland's efforts to manipulate the vote for Regional Council in Ward 3 Pickering (by endorsing a candidate). Mr. Holland does not even live in the ward, yet he feels important enough to direct the residents of Ward 3 to vote for a former NDP adversary with no experience in local politics and no record of having attended council meetings. Is this perhaps payback for the NDP taking a dive in the last federal election? At best, Mr. Holland's meddling insults the intelligence of the citizens of Ward 3 Pickering in their ability to make an informed choice for their local and regional representatives.

I'm not suggesting that every word of that would be accepted by every person in that area, but I can certainly tell you that it's a broad base of public opinion. As such, I think we have here now an attempt to go right down the same smear tactic.

I can tell this committee...and I would hope most committee members here would state the obvious. I would not say anything in committee that I would not say outside the committee. I would not abuse parliamentary privilege by not having the courage to say something outside the parliamentary precinct under parliamentary privilege that I would not say inside it. When you do that you void your responsibility as a citizen of Canada for telling the truth and not trying to abuse the system. That, unfortunately, is what Mr. Holland is doing here.

I have two quick questions, gentlemen, to get right to the crux of this.

Mr. Kirkpatrick, I believe the facts are clear, but could you tell me, sir, did the democratically elected Ottawa City Council vote against the light rail contract?

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

The simple answer to that, Madam Chair, is no, they did not.

On December 6, 2006, they voted first to confirm, and directed the approval of the north-south light rail agreement project. They then moved further to that to direct me to negotiate with the consortium intended adjustments to the downtown scope. Then they further directed me to work with the federal and provincial governments under the terms of the existing contribution agreement, which clearly stated that it would require the approval of the federal and provincial governments to make any of those intended scope changes.

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

In other words, obviously, the council did not table this, but they've said it's a work ongoing.