Harbour Clean-up Committment or Not?

Paul Sears’ request for Ron Ellsworth to clarify his comments made during the televised deputy mayoralty debate is justified.

During the debate Ellsworth said “… Minister Loyola Hearn has already committed to help cost-share the increase, so we already know what’s going to happen” in response to a question on the harbour cleanup overrun.

This is news! No one knew that Hearn had made this commitment. And he hasn’t.

In response, Ellsworth is reported on the Telegram’s website as saying:

“…Ellsworth said he was trying to reiterate Hearn’s comments during the debate. “It wasn’t an announcement. It was a 30-second response to a question in a half hour debate,” Ellsworth said. “These questions are coming at you, they’re not pre-planned. “All I was doing was reiterating what the minister had said on April 3 ... The bottom line is we have three partners here in this project. We appreciate the attempt of the federal government to assist.””

In an email response to me, because I had also queried Ellsworth’s comments a day earlier, Team Ellsworth (It appears Ellsworth did not pen the response) responded:

Regarding Ron's response at the debate pertaining to the cost shared increases. It was a 30-second response out of an 1/2 hr debate & all Ron was doing was reiterating what was announced in Telegram April 3rd by the minister.

The quote from The Telegram reads: "... but government may be able to help fund other projects like the Team Gushue Highway in order to free up some money. It is this freed-up money that will be able to allow us to reduce out (sic) costs on the project."

Are they the same thing?

I don’t think so.

Surely “…has already committed…” is not the same as “…but government may be …”

Hearn only indicated federal money MAY be forthcoming for another project. In fact, Hearn has clearly stated on several occasions that the federal government does not fund cost overruns on capital projects.

And we do not know what is going to happen. The third partner, the provincial government, has given no indication as to what role they will play with the cost overruns. Even if a project is found that federal monies would go to, it does not mean any “savings” would go toward the harbour clean-up overruns. This would be a decision of council. Who knows? Depending on the city’s priorities, council may decide to proceed with water tax increases and redirect the funds to another project. The difference in water tax between the “worse case” scenario and “best case” scenario is $40.59 per year by 2012 according to Bob Bishop, the city’s Director of Finance, in a document dated April 10, 2008 tabled at a council meeting.

For me, Ellsworth had clearly left an impression that the federal government had committed to cost-share the overrun and that the city already knew how the cost overruns were going to be covered.

A clarification was needed and it is unfortunate that in providing clarification, he has not acknowledged that his comments may have lead citizens into believing the federal government had made a commitment to help fund the cost overruns and the city had basically resolved the issue.