Media Statement

For Release 11:00 a.m. Sunday, November 8, 2009

Contact:  Brian Iler, Chair

The Toronto Star's series on TPA abuses this week has revealed a shocking level of disregard for the public interest and the normal rules of governance on the part of Stephen Harper's appointees to the TPA board.
 

When given details of their malfeasance, Stephen Harper’s people shot the messengers, replaced them with more loyal Conservatives, and ignored the whistleblowers.

The TPA has become a playpen for Stephen Harper’s political appointees with their own agenda and no accountability for their actions.

Why is this happening?

In our view, the Port Authority structure, imposed on Toronto ten years ago against its will, is a huge part of the answer. It's the wrong structure:  it places control of huge swaths of Toronto’s waterfront in the hands of a majority of federal government appointees.

That might be appropriate for a port of “strategic significance to Canada’s trade” – a precondition for port authority designation. Toronto’s port has never ever met that requirement. The governance structure established for Port Authorities reflects that national interest.

In the absence of that strategic significance, the overwhelming control of the TPA board by the federal appointees creates potential for serious accountability problems. That potential has been realized in spades, in Toronto.

Our conclusion – the structure is wrong. It needs to be changed.

Toronto’s port need to be accountable to Torontonians. That can happen only if control is given back to the City.

 Toronto deserves no less.

30

Backgrounders

Contents:

1.      The TPA and the Harris-Hudak Connection

2.      The Mandatory Requirements of the Canada Marine Act

3.      Mandated Criteria for Federal Ports

4.      Port Authorities are to be “Of Strategic Significance to Canada’s Trade”

5.      Categories of Ports in Canada

6.      Port Classifications as of December 31, 2008

1.      The TPA and the Harris-Hudak Connection

What do TPA directors Jeremy Adams, Sean Morely, Robert Poirier and Craig Rix have in common?  Ties to Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution.

Mr. Adams was Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer’s communications assistant in 1998.  In 2004, Mr. Adams was campaign manager for Jim Flaherty when Mr. Flaherty lost the Ontario Tory leadership to John Tory.  Afterwards, Mr. Adams was quoted as calling Mr. Tory a weak leader.  This year, Mr. Adams was a spokesman for Tim Hudak.  Mr. Hudak won the Ontario Tory leadership, replacing John Tory.  During the campaign, Mike Harris worked behind the scenes for Mr. Hudak who had been one of Mr. Harris’ cabinet ministers and part of the Common Sense Revolution.  Tim Hudak is married to Deb Hutton, Mr. Harris’ EA who, during the Ipperwash standoff, got” the f*****g Indians out of the park” to use words attributed to her boss.

Sean Morley spent nearly four years as senior policy advisor to the Minister of Education and Training, and to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities during the Harris regime.  This year Mr. Morley was the agent for Christine Elliott’s campaign in her losing bid for the Ontario Tory leadership.  Christine Elliott is Jim Flaherty’s wife.  Jim Flaherty, the current federal Conservative finance minister, who was Ontario finance minister under Mr. Harris.

Robert Poirier, who has raised thousands of dollars for the Conservative party since 2005, hosted a $1,100-a-plate fundraiser with Industry Minister Tony Clement at Toronto's Albany Club in January this year.  Mr. Clement was Minister of Health under Mike Harris before Mr. Harris quit.  Mr. Clement has been called “one of the chief architects of Harris' so-called Common Sense Revolution.”   Mr. Clements was the founding president of the Canadian Alliance which morphed into the Conservative Party of Canada.

Craig Rix was a former aide to Jim Flaherty.  Mr. Rix was aide to Mr. Flaherty when Mr. Flaherty was Ontario's labour minister in the late 1990s, in the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris.

Together, the four constitute a minority on the nine-person board (eight men and one woman and one fewer directors than Canada’s largest port, Vancouver, but two more than Montreal and Halifax); however, this core group easily forms a majority with a vote from Porter CEO Robert Deluce’s friend, Director Colin D. Watson, who listens for communists, or from Chairman McQueen, a one-time operative in Brian Mulroney’s office.

2.     The Mandatory Requirements of the Canada Marine Act

The Canada Marine Act contains mandatory requirements for the appointment of directors: that

·        a consultation process with port users be followed, and

·        aside from one nominee from each of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, the rest of the directors must be appointed as a result of that consultation.

Transport Minister Baird has continued to totally disregard those requirements.

In fact, to the best of our knowledge, none of the directors are representative of any of the port users – save Mr. Watson, who clearly is representative of airport users (he has described himself often as a friend of Robert Deluce, CEO of Porter Air).

Here is s. 14 of the Canada Marine Act:

14. (1) The directors of a port authority shall be appointed as follows:

(a) the Governor in Council appoints one individual nominated by the Minister;

(b) the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent appoint one individual;

(c) the province or provinces mentioned in the letters patent appoint one or two individuals as mentioned in the letters patent; and

(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent [our emphasis].

The Toronto Port Authority Letters Patent state (or at least they did, until they were apparently amended by Order-in-Council to stack the board with an additional two directors last January):

4.6 Appointment of Directors. The directors of the Authority shall be appointed to hold office as follows:

(a) the Governor in Council appoints one (1) individual nominated by the Minister;

(b) the City of Toronto appoints one (1) individual;

(c) the laceType w:st="on">provincelaceType> of laceName w:st="on">OntariolaceName> appoints one (1) individual;  and

(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining four (4) individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with the users selected by the Minister, or the classes of users[our emphasis].

4.17 Nomination Process for User Directors. The classes of users established for the purpose of providing candidates for user director positions are listed in Schedule D [see below].

Each class of users is responsible for providing candidates for one such position. With a view to ensuring that the length of any user director vacancy is minimized, the chief executive officer of the Authority, or such other person who may be designated by the Board in the absence of the chief executive officer, shall facilitate and provide administrative support for the following process:

(a) within six months of the date that these Letters Patent become effective, the chief executive officer shall cause meetings to be held with each class of users specified in Schedule D for the purpose of notifying each class of users to establish a nominating committee to be comprised of not less than three (3) members and not more than five (5) members, which is to be responsible for the development of procedures for soliciting, receiving and reviewing the candidates proposed by their respective class of users; these procedures are to include the following:

(i) the use of public notices in newspapers and trade journals, and any other methods, to advertise the vacancy of a user director position and to solicit the submission of names of candidates to fill such position; and

(ii) the review of the candidates to ensure that each has the skills, background and experience required of directors of the Authority and that each is eligible to be appointed as a director under the Act;

(b) in the event of a vacancy for a user director position, or at least four (4) months in advance of an anticipated vacancy for such position, the chief executive officer shall contact the nominating committee of the appropriate class of users to request such nominating committee to provide candidates for the relevant user director position; the nominating committee shall then carry out its functions in accordance with the procedures established under subsection (a) above with a view to providing the Minister with a list of candidates within thirty (30) days of request from the chief executive officer;

(c) the Minister requires the following information in writing:

(i) a list of all the candidates who responded to the public notices and other methods devised under subparagraph 4.17(a)(i);

(ii) the curriculum vitae of each candidate listed in accordance with paragraph 4.17(c)(i) and any other information or document communicated by such candidates with a view to supporting their nomination;

(iii) a short list of candidates, comprising a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of four (4) candidates recommended by the appropriate nominating committee for the relevant user director position; and

(iv) a written confirmation by the nominating committee that each candidate on the short list is eligible to be appointed as a director under the Act.

4.18 Scope of Process. Nothing in the process described in section 4.17 is intended to or shall derogate from, interfere with, or substitute for, any consultation, inquiry, public input or process the Minister chooses to undertake in determining the candidates to be nominated by the Minister pursuant to provisions of paragraph 14(1)(d) of the Act. The Minister, in consultation with users[our emphasis], shall at all times have the flexibility and discretion to nominate as user directors persons other than those persons recommended by the classes of users to ensure an appropriate mix of Board members at all times.

And Schedule D to the TPA Letters Patent contains these detailed descriptions of the required user groups:

CLASSES OF USERS

CLASS 1

Port Related Activities/Operators

— Operators

— Shippers

— Carriers

— Brokers/Freight Forwarders

CLASS 2

Airport

— Airlines

— Fixed Bases Operators

— Training Schools

— Repairs

— Fuel providers

CLASS 3

Commercial Users

— Developers

— Crushers/Aggregates

— Hotel Operators

— Retail Business

— Other Non-marine, Non-air Shippers/Transporters

— Other Commercial Users

CLASS 4

Recreational Business

— Tour Boat Operators

— Marinas/Yacht Clubs

— Cultural Businesses

— Recreational Service Industries

Users may not be included in more than one class. Those who are members of a group or association may not vote individually. A company and any entity in which it holds an interest are treated as a single entity.

We understand a process was undertaken by the TPA some years ago, but none of the directors appointed by the Harper government were not the result of this process.

3.      Mandated Criteria for Ports

S. 8(1) of the Canada Marine Act sets out the criteria for a port to be subject to the Port Authority regime: that it

“(a) is, and is likely to remain, financially self-sufficient;

(b) is of strategic significance to Canada’s trade;… and

(d) has diversified traffic.”

 The laceType w:st="on">PortlaceType> of laceName w:st="on">TorontolaceName> satisfies none of these criteria, and never has.

4.      Ports are to be “of Strategic Significance to Canada’s Trade”

Toronto handled only 0.3% of the 2007 total cargo volume through ports in Canada. Most of  this volume relates to bulk loads delivered directly to private shippers’ wharves – sugar, salt, cement and gravel.

Although there many shipping containers stacked in Toronto’s port, The CEO of the Port Authority admitted at its 2006 AGM that none had arrived by ship, and none left by ship.

5.      Categories of Ports in Canada

·        Category 1: Canadian port authorities under Transport Canada jurisdiction

Canadian port authorities (CPAs) are independent management corporations mandated to operate ports deemed essential to domestic and international trade, forming what is sometimes called a national ports system. Other ports may qualify for CPA status and join the national system if they meet the criteria for this category.

·        Category 2: Regional ports under Transport Canada jurisdiction

These ports are not part of the Ports Commercialization and Divestiture Program. Smaller than the CPAs, they serve regional and local economic, tourism and recreational needs. They were transferred to local organizations over a six-year period ending in March 2002. This is the category that Toronto belongs in.

·        Category 3: Remote ports, normally only accessible by sea

6.      Port Classifications as of December 31, 2008

http://www.tc.gc.ca/policy/report/aca/anre2008/add/table-m1.html