Evidence of meeting #20 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
So there was a meeting held in the cabinet room. But with whom, considering that I just read you a list...?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I don't have attendance lists for cabinet committees here. I don't have the exact date in front of me.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Could we have that list, Madam Chair? I would like to see this committee receive a list of the ministers who were present when the discussion took place with Treasury Board on the signing off of the light rail contract.
I would like to remind you that the Secretary of the Treasury Board said he never actually saw the contract. So I'm coming back on this. One person tells us he never actually saw the contract. We know there was a week when six ministers at least were not in Ottawa. Yet you tell us there was a committee that physically met and discussed this contract.
Once again, I am asking if we could have a list of the persons who were present—along with yourself, Minister—to discuss that contract. I would also like the date and place.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
That he present the list of people who attended the Treasury Board meeting to discuss this?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I have a question. Why would she need a motion?
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Well, let him answer. If the chair would stop directing members of the committee....
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Obviously, Mr. Baird has said before that he didn't quite remember, so perhaps he needs to go back and check.
But, Mr. Baird, if you want to answer....
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Subject to cabinet confidences, obviously, I will take the question.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Cabinet confidence, Mr. Minister, covers what the cost was, who discussed what, and what decisions were taken. Cabinet confidence does not include when you met, where you met, and who was present, and this is what I would like to hear. I have not asked what was discussed in detail. I have not asked what the decision was. I have asked where you met, who was present, and when you met.
I'd like to bring up another point here. We have a letter in front of us, dated October 10, 2006, signed by Mr. Wouters, Secretary of the Treasury Board. He's writing to Mr. Kirkpatrick, city manager, saying, “I am writing today to inform you that the government of Canada has approved $200 million in funding for the North-South Light Rail Transit Project in Ottawa.”
In all this, there are people who are saying they don't have the information or that the information has been approved. On the other hand, you, Mr. Minister, are saying that you did meet, in spite of the fact that we have information that practically everybody was away. We need to have much more specific, concrete information. This is not a cabinet secrecy point, because I'm not asking how it was discussed. I'm asking simply who of the cabinet ministers were present.
April 1st, 2008 / 9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
—your time is up.
We will go to Madame Faille.
Who is going to begin? Ms. Faille or Ms. Bourgeois?
Ms. Bourgeois.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, I would like to revisit certain comments that you made. You said that costs were spiralling. However, the City has told us that, had the project been over budget, it would have absorbed the additional costs. Were you aware of that?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
The city, of course, would be legally liable for any cost overrun. The reality in government is that if you have a three-way partnership of a third, a third, and a third, the minute there's a cost overrun, they're at your doorstep expecting money, and it's an awfully difficult decision to not give money.
For example, when the gun registry was only supposed to cost a few million dollars, there was a contract to provide it. Of course, they came back and asked for more. And that's how things spiral out of control.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
You are correct in saying that you have a responsibility in terms of the three-way partnership, but your responsibility is not simply to spend taxpayers' money whenever a request is submitted. However, after undertaking the required analysis, and after a project is approved by all of the relevant stakeholders, your sole responsibility is to release the funding. Your mandate is not to say whether the project suits you personally.
That being said, if I am not mistaken, the new municipal council had approved a light rail transit project. Why did you ask for another vote?
I have one last question for you before I hand over to my colleague. You said that the City lied to you concerning the deadline for the document it had to sign. Do you stand by the allegation that the City lied to you?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
You asked a number of questions. You first made a statement that it's the responsibility of Treasury Board to disburse funds. We wouldn't need Treasury Board if public servants could make decisions and it was just a—
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
No, you're wrong. It's exactly the responsibility of Treasury Board to exercise value judgments with respect to things that come before it. With respect, it is. Otherwise, why would you bother having a meeting? The officials would just have the responsibility to approve all the money.
At the end of the day, we did have a responsibility to exercise due diligence, to ask important questions about value for money, and the other.... So you're wrong there.
With respect to the dates, we were told that it had to be passed by October 1, it had to be passed by October 4, and it had to be passed by October 15 and October 5. We were getting so many answers that I said, “Show me where it says we have to make a decision or there's no penalty”. I asked, I got the contract, and sure enough, I was exactly right. I had been misled, and there was a 60-day delay explicitly contemplated in the contract, just for this purpose. The federal contribution agreement had not been signed. You could have a 60-day delay.