Jeremy - you couldn't have been listening Thursday when your fellow TPA director tried the same defence. He was not exonerated by the Commissioner. He just barely squeaked through in what lawyers wuld describe as a pretty bizarre decision. When confict of interest rules ar established t maintain trust and cofidence that noimproper cosiderations influence decisions of pulic bodies, how could Porter CEO's self-described 'good friend' not be in conflict?

Fortunately, for the public interest, the TPA has a Code of Conduct that prohibits voting on an issue where the appearance of a conflict exists.

Even you would have to agree that on the facts that were before you and Mr. Watson that day - and certainly given the clear legal opinion placed before the board the day of the vote confirming that the Code prohibited Mr. Watson from voting, he should not have voted. If that had occurred, the 5-4 vote would have been 4-4 and $5,000,000 of public funds would not have beenspent for Porter's second ferry.

What I wasn't permitted to ask on Thursday (and perhaps you would answer now) is why it was so important to the five member majority that they would be complicit in a breach of the public trust of this magnitude?

Why did you condone Mr. Watson's egregious breach of his duty to the people of Canada?

Brian Iler, chair
CommunityAIR