Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to just read something into the record, and then I have a question if my time allows me.
There have been a number of questions today regarding the letter from the Ethics Commissioner. I just want to read a letter to the honourable Navdeep Bains dated November 22:
Dear Mr. Bains: Further to your letters of October 18 and 31, 2006, I have considered your request to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the Honourable John Baird, President of the Treasury Board, on the alleged improper release of certain information to the media on the Ottawa North-South light rail project.
He goes on to say that:
The sections in the POH Code that you cited are related to the impropriety of a public office holder acting in a way that would inappropriately advance his or her own private interests or those of another person. The information you have provided in support of your allegations identifies the interest of Minister Baird as “political interest”. While the circumstances in a case may support a conclusion that an individual's political interest is also a private interest, for example, a Minister participating in a leadership campaign, this does not always hold true. In the present case, at least based on the information you provided, I am unable to conclude that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Minister Baird improperly furthered his or another person's private interest. [...] On the basis of the information you have provided in support of your request for an inquiry, I am unable to conclude, on reasonable grounds, that the POH Code applies to the allegations contained in your letters. Accordingly, please be advised that no examination of the events in question will be initiated. Cordially, Bernard J. Shapiro, Ethics Commissioner.
I think that clarifies the fact that the Ethics Commissioner has in fact weighed in on this question.
The other point I'd like to come back to just for a moment is this question around the issue of penalties. It appears to me that at one point in October, there was some pressure exerted by council, or the previous mayor, on the federal government to sign by the middle of October or in fact there would be penalties forthcoming. But later Mr. Chartrand corrected the record, indicating that in fact the prices would remain in effect until December 14, in his statement in which he said there would be little exposure.
Mr. Kirkpatrick, you identified the fact that the 60-day extension wasn't the intent of the clause that was there. That may or may not be true, but it's hard for us at this point in history to determine what the intent was. The fact is that it was there. It was in the clause.
It seems strange to me that a council--which was very much aware that a municipal election was forthcoming and the date of that election--and the Ottawa LRT corporation, which was also very much aware of an impending municipal election, would not be more careful in articulating those possible extensions with the impending elections coming up. I find it confusing, trying to understand how these two groups with that kind of expertise and knowledge of the municipal process would not in fact have closed that door more securely if that was not their intent.