HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. James DeWolfe (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Keith Colwell
In Attendance:
Ms. Mora Stevens
Legislative Committee Clerk
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
8:07 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. James DeWolfe
MADAM CHAIR: I would like to call the subcommittee to order. We essentially have two items of business, one which we more or less dealt with, but I would like to have it dealt with on the record. I've had a phone call from Marian Tyson, the Deputy Minister of Community Services. They are scheduled to be in front of us on April 12th with respect to the Federal-Provincial Housing Agreement, and Ms. Tyson has a member of her family having surgery the day before the meeting and she will be unable to attend. She wanted to ask if she could send a substitute and I said I would bring this to the committee for a decision about whether we would want to reschedule for a time when she could be here or whether we would prefer to go ahead with a substitute. I think we have agreement that we will keep that date because we've already moved it.
The other matter we have this morning is the matter of the S&J Potato Farms loan and Village Developments. We had been asked by the Public Accounts Committee to consider whether or not there are any other areas that we should explore with respect to these loans.
MR. KEITH COLWELL: There are a couple of things. One was brought up by our committee, and the other one is that I would like to see, and our caucus would like to see two more witnesses called - Lynn Coffin and Bob Barton, who are actually officers who looked after the loans and those accounts - to get in detail their perspective on it and exactly what they feel transpired. We've had senior officials in here, but sometimes the senior officials sort of are filtered through the process. I think these two individuals, where they were key in these operations, would give us valuable information that we probably don't have now. I would like those two people be called to the Public Accounts Committee. That is the first item.
[Page 2]
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. DeWolfe.
MR. JAMES DEWOLFE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I fail to see where bringing the field workers - I think these are basically the field workers who are out there - will shed any additional light on this topic. I fully understand that the Liberal caucus wants to try to push this issue, because there is very little else for them to work on politically. I can tell you that this issue is pretty dead in the water in my area, and actually the comments that are mostly coming out are negative feedback toward the Liberals with regard to being somewhat rude to the former Premier John Hamm. That didn't play well out there, and it certainly won't play well on the doorsteps when the Liberal candidates go door to door.
I really think that this issue has gone and perhaps the Liberal caucus should probably grab another cloud to float on.
MADAM CHAIR: I had an opportunity to speak with my colleagues on the committee, Graham Steele and David Wilson. I think our concern is that the heavy censoring of so much of the documents has given us a limited capacity to get all of the information out that we wanted to get out. Our caucus felt that we had essentially gone as far as we could go, given the information in the form in which it had come. What I would do at this stage, rather than say yea or nay, is to take the suggestion back to my colleagues and see if they think it would have any merit in exploring more questioning with these two members who have been suggested. If that's okay, then we can see what they think about that because, really, based on our discussions, we felt there was a limited opportunity to really do much more, and I'm not sure these people will capture what it is we need to find out without the documentation.
MR. COLWELL: If I could, Madam Chair, I think these people are key to continuing to look at this file. Like I say, everything was edited so badly that we really didn't get the true story, and these are the two individuals who, indeed, worked on these cases, have all the information at their disposal, and although they may not be able to divulge some of the information, I am sure they will shed much more light on this situation that definitely couldn't be shed by senior officials who didn't do the day-to-day operation of the files. As far as what my learned colleague says about our Party not doing too well after asking questions that Nova Scotians deserve answers to, if that is the case, I would think that he would want these two people called so we could be in more trouble with the people of Nova Scotia, which I don't really think is the case at all.
MADAM CHAIR: I'm sure Ms. Coffin and Mr. Barton have knowledge that would be interesting from the front-line perspective, but I guess my own thinking is that the recommendations to Cabinet and the work on this file in terms of the decision making, particularly the final decision making and recommendations which we really didn't totally get because all of that material was censored, really were the folks who were already in front of us from OED, Mr. Robar, Mr. Hare, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Bryant. I think this would give us limited insight and so my caucus' frustration has been around getting the complete picture, particularly at the decision- making level- which is the
[Page 3]
more senior level of the bureaucracy- the recommendations that were made on these loans to Cabinet and then, subsequently, the conflict of interest and how that was handled.
Anyway, we will maybe defer this for the moment and I will speak with my colleagues and let you know what they think about these two suggestions.
Mr. Colwell, do you have anything further?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, as was brought up by my colleagues here, the $50 million that was put in the fund for Economic Development, those funds, I think, have to be brought forward here - the Auditor General has commented on the lack of transparency and accountability in these files. OED has not provided a business plan for the Industrial Expansion Fund and we have reason to believe they have far more of these types of loans that have been put out - S&J Potato Farms and Magic Valley or their parent company. This is just a few months away from a budget, this $50 million could have waited and been put in then, but it was put in just before the previous Premier stepped down and, for whatever people want to believe, it appears it was inappropriate. There doesn't seem to be protocols between Economic Development and Nova Scotia Business Inc. I really think we should have a very close look at this fund and get all the information we possibly can - probably a whole lot more blank pages, but I think it's very important we get this. It's a lot of money and the taxpayers of Nova Scotia need it to be accounted for properly.
MADAM CHAIR: I think I would agree with you.
Mr. DeWolfe, do you have anything to add?
MR. DEWOLFE: The Industrial Expansion Fund is doing a good job in my mind. This government will have no problem with defending that expansion fund.
MADAM CHAIR: My recall is that the first subcommittee, or maybe the second subcommittee I went to in this role, our caucus brought forward the idea of having the Industrial Expansion Fund explored a bit further by this committee, and we had Mr. Taylor and some members of the department here, but that was a very preliminary look at this fund. I think it was, at that time, before there had been appropriation of additional resources. It was when it was around maybe $11 million and now we're looking at significantly more money into this fund.
Let me ask the clerk - what are the other items that we have on our agenda? I'm taking it that you would like us to place this as an item on our agenda for further exploration of the Public Accounts Committee?
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I would agree with that. Perhaps even as early as next week when the Housing deputy can't come. I know we agreed to that earlier, that we could have a substitution and that would still be fine at a later date and maybe put that off a week and go to the Industrial
[Page 4]
Expansion Fund sooner rather than later. I think it's very relevant with what we've been talking about with the former Premier and the former Minister of Economic Development.
MADAM CHAIR: What do we have on our schedule right now? We have the Community Services with the federal-provincial housing agreement?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Clerk): Yes, that is for April 12th. April 19th we have the Department of Justice, the Maintenance Enforcement Program. On April 26th we have Education, the school user fees and special education, I guess it was, and the student user fees. I have nothing scheduled for May, but any of the other meetings could be rescheduled. They all know. They had been originally scheduled in March, and then they were rescheduled for April because of the series of hearings. So all the witnesses are aware they can be rescheduled.
MADAM CHAIR: I would like to suggest that we actually not do this next week, so that we can actually do some research. We can write, we can ask for additional information, a full accounting for the money that's in that fund that has been disbursed, the terms under which it has been disbursed, the dates on which decisions have been made, those kinds of things. If we come in without having had that kind of basic information, again, we'll spend our time trying to get information that we need to do good questions. So it would be my suggestion that we do it, we place this on our agenda, but that we give ourselves some time to get some information in advance to our members and that we continue to deal with these other matters. I mean, our first meeting in May, which would correspond with the House coming back, pretty well, we could deal with it maybe at that time. Would that be agreeable? It would give us some time.
MR. COLWELL: I don't disagree with that. From the trouble we've had getting information on everything else and the blank pages we've been getting, it might be wise maybe if the Chair could write a letter, first a letter, and we'll probably have to subpoena the information again, unfortunately, but if we can write a letter to get this information by next week.
MADAM CHAIR: Yes.
MR. COLWELL: A deadline on that, and then see what information we get. Then I would like to hold off the actual date, the setting of the date, not the date itself, until we see what information we get. If we get complete information, maybe we should fit it in before May. If we don't, then we have some more time to subpoena the information or whatever else we have to do to get the information. So I wouldn't like to set the date at this point, if that's the case. That really makes good sense, so I would agree with that.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay, is that agreeable with you Mr. DeWolfe?
MR. DEWOLFE: Yes, it is. One thing the member keeps referring to is the censoring of material, but it's confidential material from Cabinet that he refers to. I think we've already dealt with that issue, that it's a longstanding tradition - Cabinet confidentiality and Executive Committee
[Page 5]
privilege - that should and must be upheld, and it's not for this committee to make determination on that issue, it's for the House.
MADAM CHAIR: I guess that is the final matter which will be bringing this issue around the interpretation and the wide net that was cast around Cabinet confidentiality and executive privilege to the House when the House reconvenes on May 4th.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I think the House is a place to bring it as well. Also, in these documents, there's not Cabinet confidentiality that they've used here to cover up things, it's also solicitor/client information that we have no idea who the client is, no idea who the solicitor is, and the client can release that information at any time. There's no reason to maintain that. So I think that the government is hiding behind some of these terms. I think it's disgraceful that they haven't supplied the information, at least to let the subcommittee review it, like we have in the past, to ensure that the companies aren't damaged by what we do. I think that's very important, but at the same time, we have to protect the taxpayers' investments and the high taxes we pay in this province to make sure that we're getting a good return on the investments, and it doesn't always appear that's the case.
MADAM CHAIR: So are there any other matters of business or items of business? Thank you very much. We will adjourn.
[The committee adjourned at 8:23 a.m.]
