Thank you, Minister, for the indulgence.
You pointed out the difference between the Treasury Board Secretariat that does the analytical work and Treasury Board itself, which is composed of ministers who make the decisions. You took pride in saying that you asked difficult questions and you got to the bottom of things and did some research before you approved projects, but you had approved this project.
I see the letter from the Secretariat stating that the Treasury Board had approved this project as of December 10, so I presume that the difficult questions and due diligence by you and your colleagues as Treasury Board ministers had already been done.
Before I get to this point, I'd like to take you back. I have 13 years' experience in municipal government, as you have a lot of experience in provincial and federal.... I look at this, and I see in winter 2003 that council had approved the transit expansion. I know from experience that this would come after discussion. It wouldn't come out of thin air.
In May 2004 they announced the project. In May 2005 they signed a memorandum of understanding with Ottawa and with Ontario. Between May 2005 and August 2006 the intergovernmental working group...to oversee the city's progress at meeting the requirements set out in the MOU, the tripartite MOU.
On July 12, 2006, it awards the bid. From mid-September the Treasury Board submission is approved by Minister Cannon, so Transport Canada has looked at this project. They've done their analysis. They've submitted to you as president for approval for funding.
The mayor signs the contract on September 15, 2006. On September 28 to October 6, the Treasury Board meetings are held to approve the terms and conditions of the Ottawa light rail contribution agreement.
On October 6, the Treasury Board president, you, go out and receive the contract. On October 10, you approve the project.
Then later, because you're getting some pressure, you find this way to block it and not have the memorandum of agreement or the cost-sharing agreement signed. So you can't have the contract signed.
Now I'm going to bring you back to what you said at the beginning here. You were concerned very much with corruption. I see you have an understanding of it. I can see that one of the worst cases of corruption that I could find would be when a federal official, a minister of the crown, particularly the President of Treasury Board, would use his authority to influence another election in another jurisdiction, and that's the question we're examining here. I won't say you're guilty of it, but there are difficult questions to answer.
That appears quite relevant here. And then we have other allegations, as you well know, in which Mr. O'Brien is facing serious questions now.
Now, I know Mr. Wayne Wouters. He was my deputy minister when I was at Fisheries. I don't know him for taking quick and unconsidered decisions. I don't know him for wanting to get ahead of his ministers at Treasury Board in approving a project that they would not have approved.
So if he sent that letter on October 10, 2006, I would have to assume that Treasury Board would have gone through all of its due diligence and considerations, both at the secretariat level and at the board level. To say that this was being rammed through by council, when we see the progression from winter 2003 to the election time of November 2006, I find absolutely ludicrous and self-serving on your behalf.