Steinbach Progressive Conservative candidate Kelvin Goertzen said April 6 that government documents indicate NDP leader Premier Greg Selinger may not have directed a contract for flood-fighting equipment to go through the tendering process on the date he said he did.
“Mr. Selinger told media and the legislature he personally intervened on Oct. 8, 2014,” said Goertzen. “New documents show that weeks later senior officials were still seeking urgently the premier’s direction to establish an open tender, and raising alarms about the legal and ethical risks involved in continuing to pursue an untendered contract.”
A two-page advisory note to the premier posted on the PC party website dated Oct. 23, 2014 said “attempts continue to advance the original untendered IRTC [Interlake Regional Tribal Council]-owned proposal without addressing any of the identified financial, ethical, legal, political and accountability risks.” Those risks included the pressure of funding the proposed $5 million purchase from the current fiscal year, the relationship between Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Minister Steve Ashton and the supplier and the need to be compliant with the government procurement administration manual.
An NDP party statement issued April 6 said the PC claims were just an attempt to deflect attention away from their own agenda.
“Again, they’re talking about a contract that never happened,” said the statement. “We referred this matter to the Ombudsman, who reviewed this matter once again and made recommendations, which are in the process of being implemented. The premier was clear that he directed that the contract be put to tender, and the former Clerk of the Executive Council, Milton Sussman, confirmed that this is what occurred.
Ombudsman Charlene Paquin’s report into the attempted purchase – which was sent to tender in December 2014 but was subsequently not awarded – was released Jan. 7 and found MIT did not have sufficient reason to try to purchase $5 million worth of Tiger Dams flood-fighting equipment without going to tender and that the department did not do enough research and analysis into whether the particular type of flood-fighting equipment that the IRTC) wanted was the best way to fight flooding. The department’s submission to the Treasury Board proposed waiving a competitive bidding process because it felt the sole source exception – one of four acceptable circumstances under which untendered purchases for more than $50,000 can be made – applied.
The Treasury Board reviewed MIT’s submission on Oct. 6, 2014 and approved the spending but not the untendered purchase and directed the department to develop a detailed proposal with specific requirements and a plan to tender for the equipment and to provide a plan for custody, care and use of the equipment, which – because MIT planned to pay for it from its capital budget – would be property of the province but in the possession of the IRTC. Two days later, the Treasury Board minute regarding the submission was held by cabinet, and the premier told the then-clerk of the executive council to work with MIT and the Treasury Board to ensure proper procurement procedures were followed. The submission proposing an untendered contract was withdrawn by the MIT deputy minister on Nov. 13, 2014.
The proposed untendered purchase was the subject of a 2014 complaint to the Manitoba ombudsman under the Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act. The former acting ombudsman referred the matter to the clerk of the executive council and was informed that the contract for the equipment would be tendered, so the ombudsman’s office deemed that issue resolved.
The PCs demanded Ashton’s resignation in June 2015 for what they called an undeclared conflict because the owner of International Flood Control had previously donated to Ashton’s election and leadership campaigns.
Following the resignation demand, Ashton asked Manitoba Conflict of Interest Commissioner Ron Perozzo for a written ruling on whether a contribution to a campaign would constitute a conflict of interest.
“I am of the opinion that a contribution to a leadership campaign, made in accordance with the Election Financing Act would not, in and of itself, give rise to a pecuniary interest under The Legislative Assembly and Executive Government Conflict of Interest Act,” wrote Perozzo in his July 2015 decision.
