Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the

Pearson Airport Agreements

Minutes of Proceedings

OTTAWA, Thursday, September 14, 1995
(19)

[Text]

The Special Committee of the Senate on the Pearson Airport Agreements met this day, at 9:00 a.m., the Chair, the Honourable Senator Finlay MacDonald (Halifax), presiding.

Members of the Committee present: The Honourable Senators Bryden, Fairbairn, (afternoon), Jessiman, Kirby, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, MacDonald (Halifax), Stewart and Tkachuk. (9)

In attendance: John Nelligan, Q.C., Counsel to the Committee.

WITNESSES:

Morning:

Donald Matthews, Chairman, Matthews Construction Canada Inc.;

Gordon Baker, Counsel to Matthews Group.

The witnesses made a statement and answered questions.

Afternoon:

Jocelyne Bourgon, Clerk to the Privy Council.

The Committee resumed its examination of the Order of Reference adopted by the Senate on May 4, 1995.

The Clerk of the Committee administered the oath/solemn affirmation and declaration to the witnesses, pursuant to section 13 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

At 11:30 a.m., the Committee recessed.

At 12:30 p.m., the Committee resumed.

The Chairman made a ruling on Senator Bryden's point of order from Wednesday, September 13, 1995, as follows:

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Honourable Senators, yesterday morning Mr. Donald Matthews, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Paxport, made an opening statement before the Committee in which he provided a chronology of events surrounding the setting up of Paxport under the leadership of Ray Hession. Mr. Matthews stated the following:

As part of his responsibilities, Ray Hession visited with opinion leaders; political, corporate and labour. It was recommended to me that someone should call on Mr. Chrétien. Paul LaBarge, who was acting for us in Ottawa, subsequently arranged a meeting between Mr. Chrétien, Jack Matthews and himself. Mr. Jean Chrétien, like almost everyone else, supported the privatization of Pearson.

Following Mr. Matthews' opening statement, Senator Bryden raised a point of order. Senator Bryden said:

...that during the course of his evidence Mr. Matthews has stated that Mr. LaBarge arranged a meeting between Jack Matthews and Jean Chrétien and that at that meeting Mr. Chrétien supported the privatization of Pearson. As you know, that's been categorically denied by the Prime Minister...

Discussion ensued among Senators as to whether additional witnesses should be invited to appear and give evidence on this matter.

I indicated at the time that I had been listening carefully to Mr. Matthews' testimony. I informed the committee that:

... if Mr. Matthews had made any statement which has been widely reported over the last number of months with respect to discussions which took place at this so-called meeting, I was prepared not to accept that statement and to rule it out of order. However, I did not think that Mr. Matthews had gone beyond the pale...

I therefore did not rule Mr. Matthews out of order at that time.

Following our recess at noon, I informed the committee that over the lunch break, the Steering Committee which consisted of Senator Kirby and myself, had met with our Counsel and Committee Clerk to review the matter and that a ruling would be rendered in due course. I am now prepared to render my ruling which pursuant to the Rules of the Senate is subject to an appeal.

Honourable Senators, Rule 91 of the Rules of the Senate states that "a standing committee shall be empowered to inquire into and report upon such matters as are referred to it from time to time...". Although the rule refers specifically to a standing committee, I am convinced that it applies equally to special committees of which this committee is one.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, citation 831 states: "(1) A committee can only consider those matters which have been committed to it by the House..."; and "(2) A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the Order of Reference..."

What is relevant to a committee's order of reference is not an easy one to determine. It is, however, the duty of a presiding officer, be it in the chamber or in a committee, to enforce the rule of relevancy. Relevancy is a fundamental rule in the procedures of Parliament. In a paper prepared by the Table Research Branch of the House of Commons in 1982 entitled Rules Respecting Repetition and Relevancy in Debate, it is stated: "The requirement of relevancy is necessary in order that the House might exercise its right to reach a decision and to exclude from debate any discussion which does not contribute to that process...".

The problem the Chair has, then, is whether the calling of any witness on the circumstances of a particular meeting which took place in 1989, well before the issuing of the Request for Proposals, contributes to reaching decisions regarding our order of reference. To repeat once again our order of reference is as follows:

To examine and report upon all matters concerning the policies and negotiations leading up to, and including, the agreements respecting the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport and the circumstances relating to the cancellation thereof.

I do not want to imply that answers to these questions as to what the various participants recollect about that meeting are not important. They may be very important, particularly since different versions have been reported in the media and discussed in both the Senate and the House of Commons. However, it is my opinion that these discussions do not appear relevant to any of the areas of study concerning the Pearson Airport Agreements our committee has conducted over the last three months. These have included such subjects as the policy environment, the terminal 3 precedent, the decision to re-develop, the development of the RFP, the evaluation of the proposals, the post-evaluation development, the negotiations, the signing of the deal and a review of the conclusions drawn by Mr. Nixon. Whatever may have been discussed at this meeting between Mr. Jack Matthews and Mr. Chrétien does not appear to be relevant to any of these aforementioned subjects.

I therefore rule that this area of discussion is beyond the order of reference given to this committee by the Senate and any evidence by future witnesses that in any way related to this matter will be ruled out of order.

At 3:00 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

ATTEST:

Gary O'Brien

Clerk of the Committee