Round 1: Vaughan vs Volpe
Round 1: Vaughan vs. Volpe
2008-02-14 10:32:55
| By Bill Freeman |
The Canadian government is debating Bill C-23, anact to revise the Canada Marine Act and other legislation. The TPA isgranted power to operate under the Marine Act. This was our chance, wethought, to let Ottawa know that their agency was causing enormousproblems in Canada’s largest city. But as soon as we read theproposed legislation we were alarmed to learn that the intent of BillC-23 was to enhance the powers of the TPA. If passed, the legislationwill allow the port authority to have access to federal infrastructuremoney and expand their ability to borrow money. That is a significantincrease in their powers. Those of us involved in Waterfrontissues believe that the TPA runs roughshod over the wishes of localpeople and ignores Toronto City Council. Their mandate is to run aport, but they have used their powers to expand the Island Airport,ignoring the wishes of the majority of people in the city, and citycouncil. The TPA have lost money every year that they have operated,and they do not even repair wharfs and seawalls. In our view, Toronto’sport would be much better managed by city council. [It’s also a view inline with Liberal Toronto-Centre Rosedale candidate Bob Rae—F.T.] Wefelt that we had to do something. Bill C-23 had been referred to aparliamentary committee, and we used the influence of our member ofparliament, Olivia Chow, to get an appointment for us to makesubmissions to the committee. On Feb. 5 we were in Ottawa. Brian Ilerwas appearing on behalf of the boating community, Councilor AdamVaughan was to make representation, and I represented Community AIR,the group that opposes Island Airport expansion. The committeemeeting was in the West Block, a gothic, stone building in theparliament complex. The room was large, with a huge square table. Onone side sat Conservative Party members of the committee, across fromthem were the Liberals, Bloc and NDP, the chair, Mr. Melvin Tweed, aConservative from Manitoba, sat at the far end with the clerk and otheradvisors, and the three of us giving deputations, sat on the fourthside of the square. We had already delivered written submissionsto the committee, and after friendly introductions from Mr. Tweed, thethree of us gave 4-minute summaries of our concerns about the TPA.After that, the attack was unleashed at us by Joe Volpe. Volpeis the most prominent Liberal on the committee. The Liberals haveagreed with the Conservatives to fast track Bill C-23. That means theylike the bill and want it passed into law. Volpe understood that we hadcome with criticisms of the legislation and the Toronto Port Authority.He set out to attack our credibility with everything he had in hisarsenal to undermine our criticisms. First he went atCommunityAIR for our apology on the libel suit, and then he turned hisguns on Adam Vaughan. Volpe demanded to know whether Vaughan wasspeaking on behalf of himself or city council. This is some of theexchange. VAUGHAN: the notification for this meeting arrived at myoffice short of a council meeting, which means we'd have to call anemergency council meeting to take a position vis-a-vis the specifics ofthis 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 isrepresenting 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. (Adamhad risen out of his seat he was so angry. He pointed his finger andwas 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. (Adamwas beside himself at this attempt to undercut his credibility. I wassitting beside him, and for a moment I thought I might have to try andrestrain him. This accusation was particularly galling to Adam becausehe had run as an independent against a strong NDP candidate and haddefeated her.) VAUGHAN: That’s a lie! THE CHAIR: Order, please! Can we have the mics shut off, please! (Themics were shut off and gradually the Chair was able to bring order backto the meeting. Another Liberal was asked to speak, but still theattacks on Adam Vaughan continued. Again the questions turned toVaughan’s authority to speak on behalf of council. This is part of hisreply.) VAUGHAN: The city did not pass a resolution because thedetails of this legislation did not reach city council in a timelyfashion enabling us to make a position known. But I can assure you thatwhen we reviewed this with the mayor's office … when we read theminister's comments that this particular funding would not be newdollars but rather would come out of the existing framework and theexisting funding programs, we suddenly realized that this put a risk onour ability to tap into the transportation dollars that we need andthat the city of Toronto would then be competing with a federallyconstituted body for precious infrastructure investment coming out ofOttawa. I can assure you that if that position was putin front of city council that local authority to drive infrastructureinvestment was going to be supplanted by a group of people appointed bythe federal government that had no accountability to a relationship tothe city or to the port that there would be unanimous endorsement of aposition opposing the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act… Theissue here is about local accountability, local agencies, and inparticular local governments to control both the planning process andthe economic development of their agencies. (The Cityof 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 uniqueand internal to the economy of the City of Toronto. Setting up afederal agency that is not accountable either to the port users or to alocal city or even to that matter to the shipping industry, settingthat up to operate in the city of Toronto in such a way that itcompetes with cities for scarce transportation dollars is somethingthat the City of Toronto would not, cannot, and if you want a motion,will not support through a resolution in council. Iapologize that we didn't get it in front of the council sooner, butmake no mistake about it, as other cities start to learn about theimplications contained in this brief and in this piece of legislation,make no mistake about it, I think you'll hear from the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities… This port authority has lost money everysingle year it's been in existence. Its only source of income has beento sue people. It's now trying to sue me for building a sidewalk to alocal school that it says didn't even exist under its transportationplanning, and it's been there for 10 years prior to the port authorityin existence. This port authority does not respect local authorityand local government, and it doesn't invest its dollars in shippingactivities. It's building parking lots, it built a ferry dock to theRochester ferry a year after the Rochester ferry stopped running, butit doesn't participate in shipping activities. (The questions passedto other members of parliament but Adam Vaughan’s eloquence andforcefulness never faltered. This is part of his answer to anotherquestion.) VAUGHAN: We've been trying for a year and ahalf to get them (the TPA) to fix the two shipping channels that enterto the harbour of Toronto. They won't do it. Part of the problem isthey have no money to do it, but part of the problem is they refuse totake jurisdiction over the issue. Conveniently, when the letters patentwas drafted for the port authority, they removed the harbour from thejurisdiction of the port authority. What they left it with was a coupleof ferry docks and a couple of shipping channels, but they only havejurisdictional control over the navigation of those channels. Theydon't actually have control of the maintenance of those channels. Whywould 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 toa public school, and to render an intersection safe for schoolchildren, the port authority has taken us to court and is suing us foracting in bad faith, saying that their needs on the street trump thelocal needs of children. (The full transcript of the committee can be found at www.communityair.org It makes interesting reading.) Sowhat is to be made of all of this? The Liberals and the Conservativeshave joined together to ram this legislation through parliament. Theyhave worked together to significantly increase the power of the TorontoPort. Our demands that the TPA be turned over to local control will beignored. The Liberals and Conservatives do not want democratic controlover the port authority, and you can be sure that means more trouble onthe Waterfront. And what of this confrontation between Vaughan andVolpe? After the time for our submissions was up, Joe Volpe came up toAdam Vaughan with a big smile on his face, his hand outstretched, as ifto say let’s not let this little squabble come between us. Adam wouldhave none of it. He went at Joe yet again, finger jabbing angrily. Thetwo retreated out into the hallway to “have it out.” I wondered ifRound 2 was going to be the real thing with fisticuffs. I peeked out tosee them going at each other with white-hot intensity, but I knew wellenough not to intervene. |
2008-02-14 10:32:55
Comments