The following letter was sent to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner about the Watson Report.  Both the report and the letter deal with Colin D. Watson’s relationship to Robert Deluce, CEO of Porter Airlines, and Mr. Watson’s vote on funding a second ferry for the airport.  The letter asks for a point of clarification.

The report is interesting in that it details Ms Dawson’s view that the Toronto Port Authority’s Board of Directors is dysfunctional.  It also provides a snapshot of how the Board dealt with the issue of the new ferry.

The Watson Report can be found at the Commission website http://ciec-ccie.gc.ca/Default.aspx?pid=23&lang=en or at the Toronto Port Authority website http://torontoport.com/PortAuthority/media_content.asp?id=36.  It makes for remarkable reading.

Here’s the letter to Ms Dawson.

Mary Dawson
Conflict of Interest and
Ethics Commissioner

Dear Commisioner Dawson,

Would you please be so kind as to clear up a matter with regard to the process followed as described in The Watson Report in determining that Mr. Watson, as a member of the Board of Directors of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) had no conflict of interest in voting on the matter of a new ferry?

The report cites that various sections of The Conflict of Interest Act were considered in taking on the case, examining the evidence and determining its outcome.  In addition, the report mentions the Letters Patent that established the Toronto Port Authority and the two Letters Patent amendments.  Indeed, the report also refers to the Board’s Code of Conduct.  I assume this is the code of conduct covered under The Letters Patent Schedule E Code of Conduct which reads in part:

1.2 Principles. This Code shall be interpreted in accordance with the following general principles:
 
(a) every director and officer shall discharge their official duties  and arrange their private affairs in such a manner as to  preserve and promote public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of the Authority;
 
(b) the obligations of a director or officer described in subsection 1.2(a) may not always be discharged merely by acting in accordance with the technical requirements of the Act, the Regulations, the Letters Patent, the by-laws and the policies and resolutions of the Board; and
 
(c) public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of the Authority may be as equally compromised by the appearance of a conflict as by the existence of an actual conflict.

Judging by some of the findings and testimony in The Watson Report, it appears, that under 1.2 Principles (c) public confidence and trust in the integrity and impartiality of the Authority may be as equally compromised by the appearance of a conflict as by the existence of an actual conflict, the actions of Mr. Watson seem to have created the appearance of a conflict of interest, thus by definition of the TPA’s principles, a conflict of interest.

My question is about the scope of the undertaking of the investigation.  Does the scope not include all of the TPA’s Letters Patent?  If it does, does it not include the principles behind the TPA’s Code of Conduct as well?
I look forward to your considered response.

Respectfully yours,

Bob Kotyk

Toronto