 News Index |
|
FEATURED AD
|
|
|
|
Letter to the Editor
|
|
|
|
City Politics
|
|
Adam tackles Grit hack Joe Volpe
Neocon Grits & Tories in Ottawa content with port authority running roughshod over Toronto
|
Adam Vaughan
(Photo by Duncan McAllister)
|
|
|
|
For those of us in Community AIR, and other groups engaged in the Waterfront, the recent hearings by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was an opportunity for us to air our grievances about the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) and appeal to members of parliament to rectify the situation. What it turned into was a punch up between two political heavy weights.
The Canadian government is debating Bill C-23, an act to revise the Canada Marine Act and other legislation. The TPA is granted power to operate under the Marine Act. This was our chance, we thought, to let Ottawa know that their agency was causing enormous problems in Canada’s largest city.
But as soon as we read the proposed legislation we were alarmed to learn that the intent of Bill C-23 was to enhance the powers of the TPA. If passed, the legislation will allow the port authority to have access to federal infrastructure money and expand their ability to borrow money. That is a significant increase in their powers.
Those of us involved in Waterfront issues believe that the TPA runs roughshod over the wishes of local people and ignores Toronto City Council. Their mandate is to run a port, but they have used their powers to expand the Island Airport, ignoring the wishes of the majority of people in the city, and city council. The TPA have lost money every year that they have operated, and they do not even repair wharfs and seawalls. In our view, Toronto’s port would be much better managed by city council. [It’s also a view in line with Liberal Toronto-Centre Rosedale candidate Bob Rae—F.T.]
We felt that we had to do something. Bill C-23 had been referred to a parliamentary committee, and we used the influence of our member of parliament, Olivia Chow, to get an appointment for us to make submissions to the committee. On Feb. 5 we were in Ottawa. Brian Iler was appearing on behalf of the boating community, Councilor Adam Vaughan was to make representation, and I represented Community AIR, the group that opposes Island Airport expansion.
The committee meeting was in the West Block, a gothic, stone building in the parliament complex. The room was large, with a huge square table. On one side sat Conservative Party members of the committee, across from them were the Liberals, Bloc and NDP, the chair, Mr. Melvin Tweed, a Conservative from Manitoba, sat at the far end with the clerk and other advisors, and the three of us giving deputations, sat on the fourth side of the square.
We had already delivered written submissions to the committee, and after friendly introductions from Mr. Tweed, the three of us gave 4-minute summaries of our concerns about the TPA. After that, the attack was unleashed at us by Joe Volpe.
Volpe is the most prominent Liberal on the committee. The Liberals have agreed with the Conservatives to fast track Bill C-23. That means they like the bill and want it passed into law. Volpe understood that we had come with criticisms of the legislation and the Toronto Port Authority. He set out to attack our credibility with everything he had in his arsenal to undermine our criticisms.
First he went at CommunityAIR for our apology on the libel suit, and then he turned his guns on Adam Vaughan. Volpe demanded to know whether Vaughan was speaking on behalf of himself or city council. This is some of the exchange.
VAUGHAN: the notification for this meeting arrived at my office short of a council meeting, which means we'd have to call an emergency council meeting to take a position vis-a-vis the specifics of this bill.
VOLPE: Now you are, as I understand it, a member of a partisan political organization.
VAUGHAN: Excuse me.
VOLPE: Mr. Vaughan, you ran under a particular party label.
(Loud voices.)
THE CHAIR: Order, please.
VOLPE: We need to know whether a witness that comes before this committee is representing a partisan position or whether it is a personal position.
(The room erupted in shouts)
THE CHAIR: Order, please.
VAUGHAN: Excuse me that's a lie. That is a deliberate lie.
(Adam had risen out of his seat he was so angry. He pointed his finger and was shouting, “That’s a lie!” There were other shouts. I joined them: “Adam ran as an independent!” but it was not recorded.)
THE CHAIR: Order, please.
VAUGHAN: Mr. Volpe, I expect you to conduct your business with the honour of your office.
THE CHAIR: Order, please, Mr. Vaughan. Mr. Vaughan, please.
VOLPE: Mr. Vaughan, you ran as an NDP councillor.
(Adam was beside himself at this attempt to undercut his credibility. I was sitting beside him, and for a moment I thought I might have to try and restrain him. This accusation was particularly galling to Adam because he had run as an independent against a strong NDP candidate and had defeated her.)
VAUGHAN: That’s a lie!
THE CHAIR: Order, please! Can we have the mics shut off, please!
(The mics were shut off and gradually the Chair was able to bring order back to the meeting. Another Liberal was asked to speak, but still the attacks on Adam Vaughan continued. Again the questions turned to Vaughan’s authority to speak on behalf of council. This is part of his reply.)
VAUGHAN: The city did not pass a resolution because the details of this legislation did not reach city council in a timely fashion enabling us to make a position known. But I can assure you that when we reviewed this with the mayor's office … when we read the minister's comments that this particular funding would not be new dollars but rather would come out of the existing framework and the existing funding programs, we suddenly realized that this put a risk on our ability to tap into the transportation dollars that we need and that the city of Toronto would then be competing with a federally constituted body for precious infrastructure investment coming out of Ottawa.
I can assure you that if that position was put in front of city council that local authority to drive infrastructure investment was going to be supplanted by a group of people appointed by the federal government that had no accountability to a relationship to the city or to the port that there would be unanimous endorsement of a position opposing the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act…
The issue here is about local accountability, local agencies, and in particular local governments to control both the planning process and the economic development of their agencies.
(The City of Toronto is the) 44th smallest port in terms of size, it moves 0.4% of the cargo by sea in this country, and almost all of that is unique and internal to the economy of the City of Toronto. Setting up a federal agency that is not accountable either to the port users or to a local city or even to that matter to the shipping industry, setting that up to operate in the city of Toronto in such a way that it competes with cities for scarce transportation dollars is something that the City of Toronto would not, cannot, and if you want a motion, will not support through a resolution in council.
I apologize that we didn't get it in front of the council sooner, but make no mistake about it, as other cities start to learn about the implications contained in this brief and in this piece of legislation, make no mistake about it, I think you'll hear from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities…
This port authority has lost money every single year it's been in existence. Its only source of income has been to sue people. It's now trying to sue me for building a sidewalk to a local school that it says didn't even exist under its transportation planning, and it's been there for 10 years prior to the port authority in existence.
This port authority does not respect local authority and local government, and it doesn't invest its dollars in shipping activities. It's building parking lots, it built a ferry dock to the Rochester ferry a year after the Rochester ferry stopped running, but it doesn't participate in shipping activities.
(The questions passed to other members of parliament but Adam Vaughan’s eloquence and forcefulness never faltered. This is part of his answer to another question.)
VAUGHAN: We've been trying for a year and a half to get them (the TPA) to fix the two shipping channels that enter to the harbour of Toronto. They won't do it. Part of the problem is they have no money to do it, but part of the problem is they refuse to take jurisdiction over the issue. Conveniently, when the letters patent was drafted for the port authority, they removed the harbour from the jurisdiction of the port authority. What they left it with was a couple of ferry docks and a couple of shipping channels, but they only have jurisdictional control over the navigation of those channels. They don't actually have control of the maintenance of those channels. Why would you do that? I don't get it?
(This is another reply he made to a question from a Conservative.)
VAUGHAN: The reality is that in my ward, as we seek to build a sidewalk next to a public school, and to render an intersection safe for school children, the port authority has taken us to court and is suing us for acting in bad faith, saying that their needs on the street trump the local needs of children.
(The full transcript of the committee can be found at www.communityair.org It makes interesting reading.)
So what is to be made of all of this? The Liberals and the Conservatives have joined together to ram this legislation through parliament. They have worked together to significantly increase the power of the Toronto Port. Our demands that the TPA be turned over to local control will be ignored. The Liberals and Conservatives do not want democratic control over the port authority, and you can be sure that means more trouble on the Waterfront.
And what of this confrontation between Vaughan and Volpe? After the time for our submissions was up, Joe Volpe came up to Adam Vaughan with a big smile on his face, his hand outstretched, as if to say let’s not let this little squabble come between us. Adam would have none of it. He went at Joe yet again, finger jabbing angrily. The two retreated out into the hallway to “have it out.” I wondered if Round 2 was going to be the real thing with fisticuffs. I peeked out to see them going at each other with white-hot intensity, but I knew well enough not to intervene.
|
2008-02-14 10:32:55
|
|
| Poll question |
| Advertisement |
|
.gif){kind=logo}
