Evidence of meeting #42 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was preuss.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
Yes, they did sign off.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
I'm just explaining why they did sign off.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It's important to know, because the allegations that you refer to later on came from some Toronto city councillors who woke up two months after the settlement and said, oh my gosh, how can we pay $35 million for a $20 million non-bridge? In fact, it was designed to ensure that there would be no further actions against the city.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
Against the city, the TPA, and the government--we wanted to have full closure of all claims against anybody.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
Good morning, Mr. Carrier.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I'm pleased to meet you.
I don't know Toronto very well. I rarely visit this city. However, when the Standing Committee on Transport examined the various airports in Canada, we did have an opportunity to go through Toronto.
I was surprised to learn that the majority of complaints about operations and fees, particularly the landing fees charged to various airlines, involve this airport. It reached a point where companies were contemplating leaving the airport and landing in other cities such as Montreal. At least, these are some of the comments we heard.
You make the following recommendation in your report, and I quote:A determined effort should be made by the TPA to take a more proactive approach to community consultations. It would be important for the TPA to reach out to organizations and groups who have raised concerns about its operations to build relationships and stimulate reasonable discussions [...]
This is similar to the comments that I had already heard to the effect that the administration failed to take into consideration the complaints of users, carriers and people living close to the airport.
This might be quite aside from the particular situation that you examined, but in my view, the results are more or less the same. I have the Minister's response to your recommendation. He indicates that he fully supports this recommendation and encourages the TPA to also support this important consideration.
In light of the comprehensive study conducted, are you genuinely confident in the will of the government, whatever government that may be, to improve the operation of port authorities, to ensure that sound decisions are reached?
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
Thank you for your question.
For openers, let me just say that communication with the port authorities and between the different stakeholders in the port of Toronto, particularly at the airport, are extremely difficult. One of the reasons for this is that several of the representatives who attend meetings have only one goal in mind, namely shutting down the airport.
Given that goal, it's not surprising that over time, tensions mount, inflexibility sets in and people have trouble communicating with one another maintaining good relations. Given that many of these people attend these meetings to let authority officials know that they have a responsibility, that they would like to have them relocate, that this airport should not operate like it does...
I have nothing against those who would prefer to see the land converted into parkland, but for the time being, an airport operates on this site pursuant to an agreement between the various parties, including the City of Toronto. The city is bound by this agreement. However, the people who live in close proximity to the airport want to see this facility shut down.
As I see it, the challenge here -- and as I said to the Minister, it's the port authority's challenge, not his -- lies in trying to resolve this issue with the help of mediators who try and find ways to brings the parties to the table to look at ways of resolving a problem situation, and also at how the port authority itself could provide more information, something that might reassure people. We've observed that the type of questions most often asked do not reflect the will to find solutions to real problems, but rather the will to identify problems and to show that things just aren't working.
The prevailing climate isn't very good.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Regardless of the problems you mentioned, these must be resolved by taking a positive, proactive approach. The Port Authority has a responsibility to come up with some good solutions.
Are you hopeful that the government will take steps to ensure that future improvements are made? You've made some recommendations and the Minister supports you, but he continues to single out the same Port Authority as the source of the problems.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
I admit that I've been somewhat removed from this file for the past six months. It has not been my main concern. When the Minister released my report, he stated that he supported this recommendation and would make every effort to improve communication and foster more openness. This is an important objective if we are to ease the animosity and tension that are present between the community and the Port Authority.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
It's difficult to reduce the animosity when there's a libel suit against the citizens of Toronto. When some of the residents spoke out in the past, the port authority decided to sue them.
But anyway, we do know that the port authority belonged to the City of Toronto for 87 years, since 1911, and until the Canada Marine Act came forward in 1998, at which time the federal government took control of it. So just for background information, historically, it always belonged to the City of Toronto until 1998 and the Canada Marine Act.
I have just a few questions.
Centred around the $35 million, it is true that it's hard to quite understand that a bridge of $20 million or $22 million would cost $35 million to settle. At that time, there was a contract with Aecon, which is the construction company, to build the bridge. There were three conditions: there needed to be a permit under the Fisheries Act; there would be approvals from the Navigable Waters Protection Act; and then, of course, the environmental assessment.
My understanding is that the Fisheries Act permit was not in hand until January 15, 2004, long after the former Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, had indicated that the federal government would respect Toronto's wish and desire to have the bridge cancelled. So if the permit wasn't there, then I would think the port authority would terminate the contract.
Also, in regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard, the permit was not in hand and there was no approval in place. So wouldn't it be prudent to wait until the permit is in hand before waiving these conditions, before the contract gets completely signed? Why would TPA be so quick to sign away all these conditions?
Also, of course, the environmental assessment is subject to Federal Court appeal, as you know.
So in those three areas alone, given that these conditions have not been met, by waiving these conditions before the approvals were issued, isn't the TPA really the author of its own problems? That is why, in my mind, the federal government should not have paid out the $35 million, because $35 million is a lot of money.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
How much time do I have?
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Well, my question was very quick, shorter than others' questions.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
My answer could be very short. I find that they complied with the requirements, that they followed the business rules.
I think if you read my report carefully--and I went to some length on the contracts, on the environmental processes that were followed--you'll see that my conclusion is very clear. You cannot blame them for anything wrong. When the contract was signed in August, there were conditions. The conditions related to the matters that were approved.
There was one that maybe wasn't mentioned. It was from Treasury Board, and it was about the borrowing authority, which was quite important. As well, there were the two other permits.
The environmental assessment proceeded during the summer, and there were discussions not only through the consultant that they had retained but also with the department itself. There were three departments involved, and they themselves were also following. They gave assurances that, in effect, the permits would be changed, and Treasury Board gave assurances as well that the borrowing authority would be changed.
You don't wait until you get the paper. You could proceed on the basis of the formal assurances that are given. They were given in time. People were complaining as if there were something very wrong that happened when the permits were issued. Were they not issued? They were issued.
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
They were issued at the time the authority determined that the final conditions had been met. It was October 31. On October 30 and October 31, they said, okay, we sign the contract. And not only that, they had discussions with their lawyers. They asked their lawyers, what if, for some reason, the Department of Fisheries wouldn't issue it, or didn't want to issue them--any reason, that the minister's office didn't want to issue it--what could they do? Sue them? Because at that point in time, everything had been completed. Everything was in order to proceed, and they did proceed. Can we blame them for that? What should they have waited for?
They had the receipt. They came in January...but they did get paid, so what's to complain about? I think that's risk management. I think this is done regularly in the business of construction, and people assess their risks. There may be times--I've not heard of many--when in effect the environmental assessment approval would not be granted in due time, but the risk did materialize here. The conditions were met.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Tassé, for coming today and clarifying some of this information. Obviously this issue is new to me, because I'm from the west coast. I have much more knowledge of west coast ports than of the Toronto Port Authority.
However, as you know, there's been some criticism of your report. The mayor of Toronto, of course, criticized the report and said that it was not worth the paper it's written on.
Of course, Ms. Chow is with us today, and she called the report a whitewash. And when I hear the word “whitewash”, it implies that you entered into your obligations to do this report with a preconceived bias. The word “whitewash” is a pretty pejorative term, so the accusation is that you entered into this with some type of a bias. So my questions are going to be focused on that.
When you were retained to do this report, were you ever instructed by a government official as to what government expected the report to say?
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
Not at all. I was given a free hand. And I didn't know very much about it. I came in out of the cold, and that is why it was so fascinating. I listened to everybody. Everybody wanted to talk to me. I talked to Madame Chow, I talked to Mayor Miller, and I talked to anybody who wanted to talk to me. As I said, I talked to Mr. Crombie. I talked to anybody. I wanted to learn about the situation, and it was not easy to come to grips with this jello, because it is quite a fascinating story. It was difficult to really penetrate the real things that matter and what was really going on.
A whitewash? That's why I reacted the way I did when I heard that on the conference call--
Legal Counsel, Gowling, Lafleur and Henderson, As an Individual
--with a number of newspaper reporters, a couple of hours after he said this wasn't worth the paper it was written on: well, has he read it? I am not saying that everything is perfect in this report. I was limited, but I think I got to the crux of the problems almost everywhere where there were issues to be dealt with. I think to say it's not worth the paper is not real.
But I have not heard any other criticism. What are the other criticisms? There was a big silence. After a couple of articles in the press, there was a big silence. I didn't know what to think. I said, maybe they are getting ready for the next ball. They have attacked the TPA, and now they will go after Tassé.
