Government Operations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

[Wayne Wouters]

I was not the lead hand on this project.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, apparently you were.

[Wayne Wouters]

The secretariat has a very specific role as the board. I've outlined what that role was. As I indicated, the Treasury Board provided authority to the Minister of Transport and the Department of Transport to enter into the contract agreement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Wouters, seven federal departments signed off on that agreement. Treasury Board stepped in, asked to see that contract, did not ask questions of the city, and then went public. At that point Treasury Board became the lead hand on that project. So why did Treasury Board not do its own due diligence and speak with the city to talk about the issues surrounding the contract before taking the matter public?

[Wayne Wouters]

Again, at no point did I say that Treasury Board asked for a copy of the contract. I was made aware by the president that he had a copy of the contract.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Excuse me, so Treasury Board did not ask. The minister asked for his own personal copy of the contract.

[Wayne Wouters]

I didn't say whether the Treasury Board did or did not, because I cannot comment here on any deliberations of the Treasury Board.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But you understand the minister had a copy of the contract. You're not saying whether or not you had a copy of the contract.

[Wayne Wouters]

I did not have a copy of the contract. I've never seen the contract.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That's quite the cowboy way of doing business, don't you think?

[Wayne Wouters]

The minister received a copy of the contract. Our legal advisers reviewed the contract. On that basis we made a determination vis-à-vis particular penalties that are in the contract, and I made the city aware of that as well in my letter of October 10.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

So, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Treasury Board did not have a copy of the contract. Minister John Baird had a copy of the contract. Minister John Baird did not bother to discuss the fine details of this contract before he went to the media, even though there would be severe legal issues in the fact that your department had already raised the issue with him in writing that there were confidentiality agreements tied to this and that the federal government had not been part of anything to do with the contract before.

Mr. Baird made no attempt to discuss with you before he went to the media?

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

Madam Chair, again, in response to the same question, no, there was no contact made in the intervening period in terms of when we provided the contract and when we received the decision in writing from Mr. Wouters and heard about the Treasury Board's decision through the media from Minister Baird.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Now we will go to Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to come back to the Ethics Commissioner's position. It makes me laugh to hear that the Ethics Commissioner said that the minister was not advancing his own interests. You know that from the outset here, we did not appreciate the mandate that was given to the Ethics Commissioner. Moreover, the response is broad, it is general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois, in order to judge a case, the Ethics Commissioner bases his opinion on the code that applies to the person in place. Mr. Tardi could perhaps talk a little bit about that.

[Gregory Tardi, Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons]

Madam Chair, raising an ethical issue implies that the Ethics Commissioner puts the complaint he has received and the code that he has to interpret, or that he had at that time, side-by-side. I do not know if we can deduce from that that every aspect of a situation is studied by the Ethics Commissioner. The role of the commissioner is determined by the legislation that governs his mandate.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You say that it is not clear if every aspect is studied or assessed by the Ethics Commissioner, but that may also be due to the request that is being made of the Ethics Commissioner.

[Gregory Tardi]

Indeed.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

On the one hand, we are not aware of the topic of the request; I have not seen that letter nor have I seen the request. On the other hand, the Ethics Commissioner may give a rather general response that does not necessarily deal with very specific points. In this case, I did not see it, but according to the letter that was just read out...

Madam Chair, I repeat, I want the documents translated and in written form, because I am a very visual person.

I understood sir, that the commissioner said that the minister did not advance his own interests. That tells us nothing. What were the minister's interests at that point in time? We are not in a position to assess the situation.

Having said that, I do not want to go on and on about it. I think there are some well-known strategies in politics whereby you create first of all a diversion when something does not suit you, and following that you ensure that there are leaks to the newspapers. In that way, you carry out a preemptive strike. What we say in Quebec is you bite before you are bitten.

Here, the minister struck first in the sense that he wanted to show that he was defending the interests of the people whereas at the same time there was a conflict between his department, the Treasury Board, and the Department of Transport. In my opinion, it was Mr. Cannon, or the Minister of Transport at the time, who should have withdrawn the $200 million in funding from the city, and not Mr. Baird.

What disappoints me in all of this, gentlemen, is that they're trying to make the municipality and the members of the municipal council accountable for the failed project. I find that most unfortunate. We interfered in municipal affairs, we undermined the work of municipal officials who are supposed to know what they are doing, who are paid by citizens to get municipal projects underway. They work for the municipality and for their electors. We have no business interfering in these people's business. I find it deplorable, and even more so as this happened at a bad time. It is unfortunate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Bourgeois.

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Chair.

Perhaps if the members opposite, instead of just making statements and reading off talking points that they brought in before the meeting about the reasons why this matter should be dismissed, were listening to the questions that were posed by the opposition members and the answers given...because I am actually left with the opposite conclusion. I'm much more concerned about this matter now than I was going into it. Certainly I will be seeking the committee to continue hearings on this matter, and will be bringing forward a motion in that respect.

Turning to Mr. Brown's point, I agree with him. When I was on municipal council, I had a great deal of concern if another level of government were to try to interfere. Particularly in a project where the basis for the interference was to try to change the outcome of who was going to be elected, I would be very concerned. If a minister were trying to use his powers to influence the outcome of an election, I agree, I'd be very concerned.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

You have no evidence of that.

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

In that regard—and this is what we're trying to find out here—I want to go back to Mr. Wouters.

Given that both the City of Ottawa and Siemens/PCL/Dufferin cite Treasury Board's intervention into the LRT project as grounds for their inability to fulfill their contractual obligations, and given that Siemens, for example, characterized as unlawful Minister Baird's decision to extend the closing date by withholding approval until a newly elected council—which is, again, an unprecedented action—could vote to approve the project, and that it “constitutes a tortuous interference with the plaintiff's economic interests”, has Treasury Board assessed the federal government's exposure should either party file a third-party statement of claim?