Government Operations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2008

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

Could I ask a follow-up question to Mr. Kirkpatrick please?

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

As Mr. Wouters indicated, I could add some context to that. That MOU for the north-south LRT project expired on December 31, 2006.

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

In 2006. Thank you.

Does the $30 million for the Strandherd bridge, announced on November 26, 2007, by Treasury Board Parliamentary Secretary Pierre Poilievre on behalf of the federal government, qualify for the funding, Mr. Wouters?

[Wayne Wouters]

Again, I'm not aware of that project, Madam Chair. I can't comment on whether that project would qualify for funding under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund or not.

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

Mr. Kirkpatrick.

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

Again, Madam Chair, through you, I can indicate only that in recent discussions with senior staff of Transport Canada they indicated to us that $200 million is still available for application from the City of Ottawa subject to a $30 million or $35 million reduction for the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge.

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

The time that is left for me, Madame Chair, I'd like to share with my colleague, Mr. Holland.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes, there is a minute left, Mr. Holland.

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

One of the things that we discussed earlier was that a copy of the contract was provided to Minister Baird and only Minister Baird. In fact we know he was acting without Treasury Board advice. It was provided to him on the condition of confidentiality, and he broke that confidentiality. So it brings me to the next question. When he broke that confidentiality, he went on to state on that same date that the contract's closing date could be delayed until December 15, 2006, and I quote, “without any penalty, without any cost”. That's part of what he was leaking to the media. I'm wondering if he misrepresented that.

Mr. Kirkpatrick, was that an accurate statement made by Mr. Baird at that time?

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

One moment please, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but after consultation with counsel here I think I would choose not to answer that question. It could have some bearing on our future issues.

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

I'll go back to Mr. Wouters just to confirm that you were not apprised prior to the release that Minister Baird intended to release portions of this contract to the local media. Just confirm that you were not aware of that.

[Wayne Wouters]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Marleau.

Mr. Holland is contending that the decision of the federal government to approve funding and provide time to allow the new council to vote on this is an issue of political interference. The Ontario government, as has been discussed, sent a letter to the City of Ottawa three days prior to the municipal election stating that the provincial funds would be reconsidered if the project was changed. The letter was given out widely to the press by the former mayor.

Now, given that the three other candidates for mayor were all proposing major changes to the project, with the exception of the incumbent mayor, and given that the mayor's campaign adviser is the brother of the premier, would you view the action by the provincial government as political interference? I ask that because the Ottawa Citizen said the following in referring to the provincial government's actions:

Mr. McGuinty's statement reinforces the message in a letter sent from Carol Layton, deputy minister of provincial infrastructure renewal, to Ottawa's city manager Kent Kirkpatrick. The letter was sent last week, during former mayor Bob Chiarelli's push to win the election after the polls showed his support sinking.

I ask again if it was political interference on behalf of the provincial government.

[Kent Kirkpatrick]

Madam Chair, through you to the honourable member, I don't think it's my place to determine whether that was political interference, just as it's not my place to determine whether the matter that's in front of this committee was political interference.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Wouters, would you view this as interference by the provincial government?

[Wayne Wouters]

I'm not going to comment on actions taken or positions taken by another government.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I find this whole line of questioning odd that we are discussing an Ottawa matter. I was on Barrie's city council for five years, and I know Mr. Holland was a member of his civic council, and if someone got involved in a local issue we'd be disappointed to see interference. So to see a Toronto MP get involved in a matter of Ottawa is odd. I hope we can move away from this waste of valuable government time and focus on some of the many issues we have in the government operations committee.

I don't think we've been productive, and unfortunately I feel this has been very much a partisan session today, not based on what this committee needs to focus on. But if there's additional time available, Mr. Moore, do you have any other questions?

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

Are we out of time?

It's good that we've limited this subject down to one committee meeting, because it's fizzling very quickly.

Your interventions have been impressive, but with Mr. Holland, it seems like it doesn't matter what has been said at this committee, he's going to keep raising allegations. We can try to defend them, but I would repeat the four key elements, and it's been reaffirmed by the witnesses here again and again. The Ethics Commissioner said that Minister Baird did absolutely nothing inappropriate here. The secretariat for the Treasury Board said all the rules were followed and there was no inappropriate behaviour whatsoever. The newly elected council and the people of Ottawa had their say, and their views have been respected on this matter.

The money that was committed to light rail is still on the table for another project that will come forward. All the rules were followed; everything has been appropriate. I guess Mr. Holland has another couple of minutes now to continue his fishing expedition, but in fact nothing inappropriate happened here, and this is a swing and a miss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I know there's a lot of interest on this subject, and I'm at the bottom of the list for speakers, but if there are others who wish to ask questions, I will entertain that in a balanced fashion.

Mr. Angus, Madame Bourgeois, then Mr. Holland.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to go back in time to October 10, 2006, and a city memo to mayor and council stating:

First let me emphasize that I regret that Mr. Baird did not raise these questions around the December 15th clauses in the contract directly with the City, but instead chose again to go to the media.

It goes on to say that if he had contacted the city, the city would have explained the problems with his interpretation of the contract. It further states:

The media transcripts indicate that Minister Baird has decided to apply the provisions for financial close for use never contemplated and that does not relate to the high-level due diligence review we understood from last week's media transcripts that Treasury Board was undertaking before final approval for their contribution to this project.

Mr. Wouters, why did the Treasury Board not bother to speak with the city about this contract before your minister told the public and the media what was in the contract?

[Wayne Wouters]

In fact, Madam Chair, I did write Mr. Kirkpatrick and provided him with the decision of the Treasury Board, including our assessment of whether there were penalties in the agreement or not.

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

I'm not interested in your decision. I'm interested in why you didn't discuss with them before Mr. Baird went public.

[Wayne Wouters]

Again, the Treasury Board Secretariat is not the main proponent of the project.

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

At this point, they certainly are. With all due respect, sir, they interfered in this project. They did not bother to even speak with the city. At that point you were the lead hand on that project, so why did you not speak with the city before your minister went and told the media what was in that contract, and basically dropped the cluster bomb in the middle of that election?