Confusion over whether or not council knew what it was getting in the 2012 Collus share sale has prompted an addition to the witness list in this last week of inquiry hearings before a summer break.
As the hearings for the first part of the Collingwood Judicial Inquiry wrap up, one of the parties is raising what he’s calling an issue of confusion: did the voting members of council know how much they were receiving in the Collus sale?
Fred Chenoweth, the lawyer representing Ed Houghton, former CEO and President of Collus, asked to bring in former councillor Kevin Lloyd to testify on that point.
Lloyd was a councillor during the sale, and for one term following (from 2000 to 2018). He was not a member of the Strategic Partnership Task Team charged with finding a bidder in the 2012 sale.
The final decision to sell 50 per cent of Collingwood Public Utilities (the holding company for Collus Power) to PowerStream was council’s to make. Council made that decision with a recorded vote of 8-0 on Jan. 23, 2012. Councillor Keith Hull was absent from the meeting and therefore did not vote on the matter. The rest of the members of council voted in favour, including Councillor Kevin Lloyd.
According to Kate McGrann, lead counsel for the judicial inquiry, the point raised by Chenoweth was the potential confusion by members of town council over the price the town would be receiving for 40 per cent of the shares of Collus Utility Services.
The Honourable Frank Marrocco, the judge overseeing the inquiry, said he is willing to bring Lloyd to the witness stand on June 28, but he would be limiting Lloyd’s testimony and the examination by both the inquiry lawyers and the lawyers for the participants to the specific question of confusion raised by Chenoweth.
Paul Bonwick, brother of former mayor Sandra Cooper and a consultant for PowerStream through the sale process, suggested it would “serve the commission” if Lloyd could expand his testimony to include his post-transaction perspective including his engagement with one of the town’s Chief Administrative Officers John Brown, and with council following the transaction.
“This is a person who was sitting only on the council side, and will have, I think, a very valuable perspective,” said Bonwick. “Until he’s had the opportunity to cross-examine, we won’t know what his perspective was on events that, in-part, have led to us sitting here today.”
Marrocco did not budge from his decision to limit Lloyd’s testimony to the one issue of confusion.
“The councillor’s perspective on that is one thing,” said Marrocco. “The people involved have already given their evidence about what they think the problem was post-merger, and they’ve tried to explain that it wasn’t the merger that caused the problem, it was Mr. Brown.”
Brown is the only other witness on the schedule for hearings this week, which take place Wednesday (June 26) through Friday (June 28).
“We’ll call Mr. Brown, and see what he has to say,” said Marrocco. “I don’t think I need to hear from the councillors on that.”
Following the conclusion of hearings for the first phase of the inquiry, each party is given the opportunity to submit closing statements.
Over the summer months, inquiry counsel will work on a second foundation document containing evidence gathered for the second phase of the inquiry, which relates to the decisions made on how to use the proceeds received from the share sale.
