:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In 2006, our government was elected on a mandate to replace the culture of entitlement and corruption, which was out of control here in our nation's capital, with one of accountability.
We all remember the gun registry fiasco, the HRSDC boondoggle, and the sponsorship scandal, Adscam. It's a shameful legacy for our country and one that we, as a government, have made significant efforts to put behind us.
In February 2006, I was asked by the Prime Minister to serve as President of the Treasury Board and to bring forward our government's number one priority, the Federal Accountability Act, the toughest piece of anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history. Through that legislation we have forever changed the way the federal government conducts its business and have given Canadians both responsible and accountable government.
I was proud of my term as President of the Treasury Board, and I believe my record there speaks for itself. Contrasted with the former Liberal administration that preceded us, one that the Auditor General said “showed little regard for Parliament, the Financial Administration Act, contracting rules and regulations, transparency, and value for money”, the Treasury Board, under our government, took its responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer very seriously.
We provided relentless scrutiny of government spending and challenged countless submissions that came before us. That was our role as we saw it, to be the final guardians of the public purse. In some cases, submissions were outright rejected. Some were deferred in order to obtain more information or to make necessary changes directed by the board. And many times, submissions were approved with conditions imposed in order to ensure the greatest accountability.
This was the case for the Ottawa light rail transit project. On September 28, 2006, the contribution agreement on the Ottawa LRT was put before the federal Treasury Board. This happened right in the middle of a municipal election campaign during which the future of light rail was a hotly contested issue for the people of Ottawa and a major flashpoint in the election.
Many local groups and organizations, city councillors, and civic leaders had come out opposed to the project and called for it to be held back until after the municipal election. In fact, Gord Hunter, a city councillor and a former Liberal Party candidate who had run against me in a previous election, wrote to me in August 2006 and urged me to, in his own words,“Help save the City of Ottawa and withdraw funding Support for this project until the City comes up with a plan that makes more sense. It is your right to do so and it is the right thing to do.”
Two hundred million dollars had been committed by the Government of Canada towards Ottawa's transit, and we had a responsibility to ensure that this federal money was spent wisely and in the best interests of taxpayers. That's what we were elected to do; that's what I was elected to do.
The scrutiny given to this project was just as rigorous as any other brought before the Treasury Board. An added challenge, however, was that the submission was brought to the Treasury Board in the middle of an election campaign, a campaign during which the public was either deeply opposed to the project or had many unanswered questions.
Being put in this undesirable position, many questions come to mind. First, why was it presented to the Treasury Board in the middle of an election? And why was there a sense of urgency to get it approved? Was it because the two leading candidates for mayor were opposed to the project? Would it not be more prudent to wait a few weeks until after the people voted? Why potentially bind a new mayor and council to something they would ultimately be responsible for if they had no say in its design? Would it not be better to let it be their decision? After all, this was the largest investment of infrastructure dollars ever put before the city.
The editorial position of the Ottawa Citizen stated at the time that “A reasonable voter might ask: Why not hold off a few weeks and let the new city council call a vote of its own, just to ensure that, in the eyes of the public, this massive infrastructure project has full legitimacy?”
The former mayor had told his council, as he had told me and the public, that there was an urgency to approve the contribution agreement. He stated that the deadline was October 1, 2006, well in advance of the November 13 municipal election date. In fact, the then mayor went so far as to publicly warn of the dire consequences if the project was not approved prior to Ottawa voters casting their ballots. Ottawa residents were warned of penalties of between $60 million and $80 million if the contribution agreement wasn't signed immediately.
Oddly enough, when that date passed, we were told that the real date was October 4. Then it was October 5, and then, of course, it was October 15.
However, what the contract revealed, and I am one of the few people to this day who've actually read the contract as it is still unfortunately kept secret from the people and taxpayers of Ottawa, was that the city had the right to extend the deadline for another 60 days--well after the municipal election--keeping the prices fixed and allowing the deal to be signed at the latest December 15, 2006, with absolutely no penalty. In other words, we were all lied to in a blatant attempt to further a political agenda.
On October 10, 2006, the Government of Canada gave approval for the project subject to ratification by the new city council that would be elected on November 13. I made it clear at the time that while it was not our place to micromanage the affairs of the city or to choose sides in municipal elections, we felt it was important that a project of such magnitude should have the full support of the people of Ottawa and the soon-to-be-elected city council as they would be the ones who would ultimately have to stand behind the project.
From the very beginning, this project had been shrouded in secrecy with very little information being shared with the public and even city council. In fact, a poll of almost 2,000 people conducted by the Ottawa Business Journal in February 2006 showed over 90% of respondents were “unsatisfied about the city's enforced secrecy amid rumours the project could top $1 billion when all is said and done”. Remember, this was a project that was originally going to cost $600 million, and then $760 million, with an eventual price tagged at $919 million, and there were still many, many uncosted items revealed in the contract that would have kept that price escalating.
In May 2006 former city councillor and mayoralty candidate Alex Munter stated:
I am deeply dismayed by what's happened with light rail expansion. It's been dividing people, dividing communities, because of concerns over secrecy, bad process and potential cost overruns.
It was easy to see that in no time, if it was not brought under control, it would become a $1 billion boondoggle.
To quote again the Ottawa Citizen on this issue:
Turns out there are some people who favour secrecy, who are happy to keep the taxpayer in the dark, and not surprisingly they belong to the federal Liberal party--the same party that when in power was hardly famous for openness and transparency.
On November 13, 2006, Ottawa voters finally had their say. More than 244,000 of them cast ballots in favour of two candidates who did not support the Ottawa LRT project, compared to just 46,000 voters supporting the mayor and his plan for light rail. That's a margin, Madam Chair, of five to one against the proposed light rail deal. The message was loud. The message was clear.
On December 6, 2006, the newly elected city council passed a motion to not proceed with the previous LRT project that was presented to the federal government, but instead chose a new direction that eliminated the downtown portion of the project from the initial proposal. I sent a letter to the City of Ottawa soon after reaffirming the support of the Government of Canada. Our $200 million commitment was, as it always had been, still on the table.
Because the project had not changed, I also indicated that it would take some time for us to ensure due diligence was performed on behalf of taxpayers due to the scope of the project. I also indicated that I believed the consortium would respect the wishes of a new city council and allow them to have additional time necessary to move the project forward.
The provincial government also said they would have to take a look at the new project but were uncertain as to their commitment. Later, on December 14, Ottawa city council had a new vote and decided not to proceed with either plan, opting instead to start from scratch. That was the decision of council, and it was entirely theirs.
This committee is asking whether or not there was political interference in the federal government's decision to approve this funding subject to ratification by the new council. Some would argue that redirecting the O-Train out to Barrhaven on the eve of a federal election campaign in an attempt to save David Pratt was political interference, or that Dalton McGuinty's government sending a letter to the City of Ottawa just 72 hours prior to voting starting in what the Ottawa Citizen described as a push to help Bob Chiarelli “win the election after the polls showed his support sinking” would be political interference.
All I can say is what we did was right for the taxpayers. We made a decision to approve the contribution agreement and let the newly elected city council come up with its own conclusions on the future of light rail. That's what they decided to do from that point on. It was up to them.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
:
Seven separate federal departments under your government approved this project. In fact, even Treasury Board, on October 10, under your leadership, approved this project. In fact, Deputy Minister Wouters, who was before this committee, said it was not even Treasury Board's responsibility to deal with this matter in this way, that it was in fact Transport's. It was Transport's file. It was Transport's decision. Your own deputy minister said it was another minister who should have had responsibility here.
We know there were 10 such other projects going on at the same time, including one in Toronto that was sole-sourced to Bombardier, yet not one of these other projects was treated in this way. This was the only project that was treated in this way. You picked this one out despite the fact that it also won a national award for procurement.
Treasury Board wasn't involved at all in the efficacy of the project--it was Transport--so, first, why were you making these decisions and not the transportation minister? Certainly you could talk to him or say that it's his file and he should be dealing with it. Why was it you particularly, particularly after all the others, including the transport minister and the transport department, had signed off on the project?
In fact, there was no reason given for the funding to be withheld. The only reason given was that there was a single clause in a 600-page document that you interpreted as allowing you to buy some more time, and yet we heard from Mr. Wouters, your former deputy minister, that on that 600-page contract you never consulted him or his officials in your determination of that.
When you were making decisions on this contract, making public proclamations that had a major impact on a municipal election, if you didn't contact or discuss it with even your own deputy minister, who did you review it with? Who did advise you on this contract in the four days that you had it between October 6 and October 10? In those four days, on 600 pages, where did you get your advice, if not from your own deputy minister and his officials?
:
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.
:
While I appreciate Charlie's intent in bringing this forward, I have some difficulty with some of the statements in here, quite frankly. I'll just sift down through them.
The first one in the first paragraph states that he received no acknowledgement of appreciation. Well, I can accept the statement that was made, but that really doesn't have any bearing on the operations of government, on the actual efficiency and efficacy of what we're trying to do here. So I really think that is irrelevant at this particular point, from a point of administration.
Particularly in paragraph 3, it says that no meaningful action has been taken on a number of important recommendations. Well, at the same time he acknowledges that 14 of the 19 have been implemented. So that's a direct contradiction in that statement. I think that statement is just absolutely wrong. There's no doubt that there are still some recommendations not implemented that Justice Gomery would like to see, and the government readily acknowledges that. But there's also a significant number of them that have been, so that statement is just factually wrong.
Then of course the next one, statement 4, expresses sincere thanks. I couldn't agree more. I think that's a great statement in there. I think it's a recognition of the appreciation of all the work of Justice Gomery's committee and his study. I think that's absolutely reasonable.
I think that really just takes away from what we're trying to do here. If Mr. Angus wishes to follow a different course of action on this, I think I'd certainly be amenable to some further discussion.
But I'd take a look at the other comments as well, the comments with recommendations 1, 2, and 3. I could talk at great length on the public appointments commission. Of course, I sat on the committee when that was thwarted for political reasons, but I don't want to go back into that and rehash that one at this particular point.
With recommendation 3, it's my understanding that that's already in process. We've advanced well along the way.
There are a lot of recommendations that require a lot of work. As Mr. Thibault would know, and Madam Chair, from having served in cabinet positions, implementing a whole series of recommendations isn't done overnight. There's been significant movement made on a number of these recommendations. If the committee feels there's a particular recommendation that requires more or immediate work, I think that's fair ball to bring before this committee to evaluate and discuss, but to throw a blank cheque over the whole thing as being not accepted, or not in the form of a recommendation, or no acquiescence from the government on this, I think is a bit wrong and misleading.
And particularly with the last one, with the Lobbyists Registration Act, it's my understanding, and of course I'm not totally familiar—I'm not the minister involved with this—but there is progress being made on that, as there has been on a number of issues that came forward with the 14 recommendations that were included in the Federal Accountability Act.
So progress has definitely been made. I certainly have great appreciation for Justice Gomery for all of the work he encountered on his study.
On this motion, I think the intent is there but there are just too many either errors or omissions in it, with the greatest respect, Charlie.
I'm very intrigued by my colleague's response. I guess I'll have to find out whether the issue here is concern over editorial content—and I'm always wary of editorial content—or actually moving forward with this motion.
If the issue is fundamentally about making statements that are perhaps politicized, I'd be more than willing to augment it to say:
Justice John Gomery appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on March 13, 2008.
Then we would strike the third and fourth line of that first paragraph and move right to the second paragraph:
Justice Gomery further testified that the Federal Accountability Act took steps in the right direction on accountability and transparency, but that it was predominantly developed before his report was finished and therefore cannot be considered a response to his recommendations.
That was his position. Then it would continue:
Justice Gomery testified that no meaningful action....
That third paragraph might bother somebody. I don't mind. That's your side of the House versus our side of the House in how we interpret it. If it means moving forward, I would certainly strike that. It's neither here nor there.
So we would be delivering something more fact-based. He came and this is what he said. We want to thank him as a committee for his work, because someone in government should do that, and we're taking it upon ourselves.
That leads me to the fundamental issue of the three key recommendations we're asking the government to study and report back on. They can choose to do that in their own time.
If my colleague's concern is on the Lobbyists Registration Act, which is not yet in force but is moving ahead, that shouldn't pose any problem to the government because it will be completed.
The public appointments commission was a commitment. Justice Gomery made it clear that he felt it should move ahead.
So if we can strike some of the language in the preamble and move forward with that, I don't think it should present any problem to anyone on the government side. So I'm interested to see if I can get support on that.