The Toronto Port Authority’s January 21 press release announced that the board of directors voted to contract for a new ferry.

The need for a new ferry, according to the press release, is to deliver passengers to the airport efficiently and safely in anticipation of expanding Porter services over the next two years.  In other words, a port user, Porter Airlines, is a major beneficiary of the new ferry and Porter will not have to pay a cent.

The press release, citing the decision to contract for a new ferry, contained the following sentence.  “At a meeting of the Board of Directors on November 4, 2008, the Board unanimously approved the engagement of a Naval Architect to prepare the necessary drawings for a new ferry.”  Assuming that the full Board was present for the vote, it would mean that Board director Colin D. Watson voted for approval.

As well as a port authority director, Colin D. Watson also is a director of Vector Aerospace.  Interestingly, Robert Deluce, President of Porter Airlines, is also a director of Vector Aerospace.  As fellow directors of Vector Aerospace, both Mr. Watson and Mr. Deluce share a fiduciary responsibility for the company.

Mr. Watson and Mr. Deluce have another business relationship.  Mr. Deluce is a port user.  His company, Porter Airlines, uses a port authority facility, the island airport.  Mr. Watson is a port director.  He is responsible for overseeing the business of the port.

Should Mr. Watson, a business associate of Mr. Deluce vote on a matter that benefits Mr. Deluce or is he in a conflict of interest as a port authority director voting for a measure that benefits a port user who also happens to be his business associate?

While it may seem evident that Mr. Watson voted to benefit Mr. Deluce on November 4, 2008, did he also vote on December 23, 2008, when the Board of Directors approved TPA management’s recommendation requiring the construction of a new, larger ferry?  If so, did he vote to benefit Mr. Deluce and was he in a conflict of interest?

Did Mr. Watson take part in the Board of Directors’ vote on January 21 to proceed to the contracting stage for the previously approved larger ferry?  If so, did he vote to benefit Mr. Deluce a third time and was he once again in a conflict of interest?

Unfortunately, we will never know the answers.  The Board of Directors is an appointed shop, with a majority responsible only to themselves and the minister who appointed them.  What are the chances of a minister investigating the people he appointed?  Don’t hold your breath.

Bob Kotyk