HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. James DeWolfe (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Keith Colwell
[Mr. James DeWolfe was replaced by Mr. Mark Parent]
In Attendance:
Ms. Mora Stevens
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
12:00 P.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
MADAM CHAIR: I will call the meeting to order, please. We have, not a huge agenda. We have received now, from Mr. Hebb, a further legal opinion giving us some options, in terms of the enforcement of the warrants that we had issued. I'm going to propose that we go in camera briefly, to ask Mr. Hebb a few questions for clarification. I certainly have a few. I don't know if the other members have a few questions just for clarification. It's an excellent opinion. It's actually very helpful.
I want to just say to members of the media what the process will be. We'll go in camera briefly. We'll have an opportunity for Mr. Hebb to give us his advice and clarify the questions, respond to the questions and then we will come back into the public domain in terms of having a further discussion of where we're going to go. So there will be something for you to participate in or observe. I would say it will probably take us about 15 to 20 minutes, maximum, to have the discussion around the clarifications. So at this stage we will go in camera.
[12:10 p.m. The subcommittee moved in camera.]
[12:36 p.m. The subcommittee reconvened.]
MADAM CHAIR: I will call the subcommittee back to order. We've had an opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Hebb with respect to the legal opinion he has provided the subcommittee and the Public Accounts Committee - all members have this. This legal opinion is now available in the public domain.
[Page 2]
I open the floor up for any discussion, any thoughts that members might have at this stage. I don't know that we have to make a decision. What's clear to me, as the Chair of the committee, in terms of acting on behalf of the committee, I would need to go back to the Public Accounts Committee, but that does not prohibit any member of the committee from taking prior action.
MR. HEBB: The Chair should be clear that she is not acting on behalf of the committee because I know this issue has arisen in other committees in the past where members have complained, was the Chair acting on behalf of the committee or was the Chair acting on behalf of oneself.
MR. PARENT: It's very important that the Chair state at the very beginning very clearly.
MADAM CHAIR: I'm fine with that. That leaves every member of this committee as basically a free agent to do what they wish to do. I would also say that in the next few days I will consult with my colleagues on the committee about the preparation of a report from the committee that would be tabled in the House.
MR. PARENT: Could we do that on Wednesday following our meeting?
MADAM CHAIR: This will actually come to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday morning. I guess what I'm essentially saying to members of the subcommittee is that when the Public Accounts Committee meets on Wednesday what I would like to recommend to the committee is that our committee table a report in the House and that I would prepare that and table the report. That report would be, I will have a draft of that report on Wednesday morning.
MR. COLWELL: Is it possible to have it before that?
MADAM CHAIR: I will do my best to have something.
MR. COLWELL: In case we want to add anything to it.
MADAM CHAIR: Absolutely.
MR. COLWELL: We want the report tabled as quickly as possible. So if we could get a draft of it before then so if we have anything we want to change or add, we have the opportunity before it goes to committee.
MR. PARENT: Yes, I think that's important. Now, will that be provided to every member of the committee or just to the subcommittee?
[Page 3]
MADAM CHAIR: We'll send it to the clerk and she will get it out to all members of the committee and ask for any feedback as soon as possible and it will get incorporated. Then we'll be ready to roll with an approval of that report, of the draft, at the Public Accounts Committee. Then when we go into the House, it can be tabled. That would be my most optimistic process.
MS. STEVENS: Just for a matter of clarification, if per chance the writ is dropped - I've been in touch with the Clerk of the House on this - when we did the National Unity Select Committee, a report had been approved and it was literally at the printer and the writ dropped, we were allowed to table the report with the Clerk as long as we could get it to him within a reasonable period of time. I think it was like three or four hours later. You're allowed to do that. Just a little bit of follow-up if something has already been approved. So there is that precedent just in case the committee needs to use that.
MR. PARENT: I guess - and I'll be overruled, I'm sure - not having seen the report, of course, to have that report and have to decide on it on the Wednesday is pushing the members fairly extensively. At least it's pushing the members on the government side to make sure we read it through carefully and get all the nuances that could be there for our vote at that meeting.
The two of you have already written reports, so it wouldn't be difficult for you people to come to a consensus, this is what we want to report, but for government members - particularly when our members are shifting right now - it doesn't give us much time. I raise that just as an issue, because it's a fairly important report. Are you insisting it be voted on on Wednesday, or can we discuss it Wednesday?
MADAM CHAIR: I think that this has been a long process that we've worked, and I appreciate you're new to the committee, but we've done a lot of work. We've spent a lot of time considering the totality of this and I feel fairly confident that the members of the committee are fully up to speed and will be able to look at - we're not talking about a huge report, we're talking about something that's fairly compact.
We've already tabled a report, the NDP members of the Public Accounts Committee tabled a report. I think it was four to five pages in length. It takes you 15 minutes to read it. It's not complicated. I think that really what we're talking about here in terms of a report to go back to the Legislature will be compact, you'll have an opportunity to read it, to comment on it. You'll have further opportunity to debate it at the Public Accounts Committee, to move amendments, all of that kind of thing, the usual procedures. I don't think the time frame is unreasonable. In fact, I think we really need to move fairly quickly in the face of maybe not being in the Legislature too long.
[Page 4]
I want to say I feel a responsibility as the Chair of this committee to bring this to some kind of conclusion on behalf of the public interest. Mr. Hebb talks about underpinning. A lot of what it is we're doing here is all about the question of what's in the public interest versus what's political interest. I would really like to see this move forward quickly and I see no reason why we can't be in that position. That's not to say that, tomorrow, members can't raise the question of privilege, but I'd like to see something formally coming from the Public Accounts Committee itself on that, as well.
MR. PARENT: I accede to the wisdom of the other members, but that's contingent on the fact that you're concerned an election is coming. If there was no concern for that, you would give time. Although you say the NDP report is a very brief report. I mean, words are very important in our business, we're wordsmiths, and to go through all this when we may not even get it until Wednesday morning, I mean if that happened to any member of the Opposition, if they were given something and you had to vote on it right then, I know that there would be complaints that there's not adequate preparation time. Anyway, I raise that issue.
MR. COLWELL: I agree with the Chair, I think this has to be tabled as soon as possible. There's a reality of the House being adjourned and I think this should be tabled prior to that. It's a very important public document I believe that should be out there. Even after the Legislature is adjourned, I'm sure this is going to continue on afterwards. I don't know when the new Legislature sits again, but it's a document, we've had members on our committee from our caucus and all the caucuses. We've had a pretty consistent membership there, and hopefully the ones from the Progressive Conservative caucus have brought their new members up to speed.
[12:45 p.m.]
I think it's something that I really would like to see on Tuesday, just to make sure that we've got a chance to go through it, so Wednesday if we have anything, we can have everything prepared or pre-warn you that these things are coming so we can talk about those things more in the committee, but I think it's really important that that report is tabled on Wednesday. Hopefully, we pass it on Wednesday and get it on the public record so it can be presented, hopefully, to the Legislature that day.
So I think it's important. This is a very, very serious situation with public trust and especially with Gordon's letter here now that indicates that we do have the right to get this information. Even under subpoena they refused to give it to us. I mean this is a very, very serious situation and I don't think we want to fool around with wordsmithing and all these things. It's important to have the document written properly, but we're going to make sure that the public understands just how serious this matter is.
[Page 5]
MR. PARENT: I think when you talk about wordsmithing, that's the very reason why it's important to have time to look at this and I'll close with this, but to be given it on Wednesday and expect it to be voted on Wednesday is not adequate time.
MADAM CHAIR: I will undertake to have something to you on Tuesday. I understand. I hear your concerns and I don't like having things dumped on my desk 10 minutes before I have to make a decision on it either. So, you know, I'll do that, not a problem. Anything else?
Now, I see we have here the adding of additional witnesses concerning Village Developments Limited and I take that, Mr. Colwell, you would like to have these witnesses added?
MR. COLWELL: Well, actually two of them are loans officers, the ones I was really interested in, and there are two other ones who were added by the PC caucus. I don't know where Charlie Parker's name came from, I can't recall.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Clerk): Jim DeWolfe had mentioned that a few times and asked for it to be added.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, the only two I'm really interested are Lynn Coffin and Bob Barton because those are the people who were intimately involved in the whole process. The other people wrote letters of support and that's immaterial to me, you know, anyone can write a letter of support. So the loans officers are the only ones that I'm even remotely interested in. The other people, I don't see any purpose in bringing the other three people in.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Parent, can you speak to these other witnesses that have been added to the list?
MR. PARENT: No, I haven't been briefed by Jim on them, but I assume that if he put them on the list, he thought they are as important as you think Ms. Coffin and Mr. Barton are for you, and so I would suggest out of courtesy to Jim that we either adopt all the witnesses or none of the additional witnesses.
MADAM CHAIR: Well, we've never really had a discussion about these additional witnesses - I guess now is the time. The purpose of the Public Accounts Committee is to look at expenditures that government makes and specifically what we've been doing with respect to this file is trying to understand what happened in the decision-making process, mostly at the higher levels, you know, in the Office of Economic Development, Nova Scotia Business Inc., and then the minister's office and ultimately at the Cabinet Table, I suppose, in some ways.
[Page 6]
I see no value in asking the officials from PRDC, which I think are local development - Pictou Regional Development Commission - who wrote a letter in support of the proposal, and the MLA for the area. I don't understand, these are people who did not make the decision to allocate five cents of public funding. Our purpose is to look at the allocation of public funding and to look at the work of officials in government, on behalf of government, in that process. So the loans officers certainly would have worked on the file, would have crunched the numbers, would have been part of that process, but these other people have had no involvement in approving this loan, in crunching the numbers, in allocating funds.
We need to be clear about the purpose of the Public Accounts Committee. We are to scrutinize the expenditures and the decisions that are made by government. I think it's a little bit much having these other members added to the list, and it would set a very dangerous precedent and we would start going down a road that we would not want to go down in terms of looking at - and quite unconnected in many aspects to what it is our mandate is . . .
MR. PARENT: Can I speak to that?
MADAM CHAIR: Sure.
MR. PARENT: You've stated that we want to talk to the people who made the decision about the loan.
MADAM CHAIR: That's right.
MR. PARENT: It's very clear and I think the committee has accepted - and I just throw this out for your consideration - that John Hamm absented himself and did not have a role in the decision making of the loan. I think that has been accepted. Yet you are very happy to have John Hamm appear before the committee and you don't want Charlie Parker to appear before the committee. I suggest Dr. Hamm did the same thing that Mr. Parker did, which was to lobby on behalf of this the way any MLA would lobby on behalf of a project in their riding, so I find it duplicitous somewhat that you would say these have no say in the loan, but we're quite happy to pull in Dr. Hamm even though he was very clear that he had no say in it.
MR. COLWELL: There's a whole big difference between a former Premier who sat at the Cabinet Table than an MLA who is in Opposition. A Premier who sits at the Cabinet Table or a Cabinet Minister . . .
MR. PARENT: He was not at the table, he was very clear about that.
[Page 7]
MR. COLWELL: Well, whether he was at the table or not, he had major input of whether or not a loan like this could happen, or any loan could happen in the Province of Nova Scotia. As Premier, that's his job and that's what he should do. Now as far as an MLA sending a letter of support - and I'm sure that you've sent lots of them for different organizations for lots of reasons - really would have no impact. As an Opposition member I have no impact whether the government borrows money or loans money to somebody, or whatever the case may be. That's up to the Executive Council and the members of that caucus to ensure that it's done properly . . .
MR. PARENT: You're saying that letters that MLA's send . . .
MR. COLWELL: If I could just finish.
I totally agree with the Chair. The member for Pictou West, I would assume, wrote the letter in support of something in his riding, which most of us would do to help whatever the situation would be, I would say probably not even knowing - and I'm just guessing this - what the financial situation was or anything, except that it was important for his area to have some help for this establishment, and probably not even knowing that they were going to be given a $350,000 grant, probably not even knowing that they hadn't paid their $200,000 loan back, and there was no interest on it and the province had set that up as a reserve - in other words, they're not going to ever be paid. That's all information the Premier had and he admitted he had that.
We had documentation to that effect and he did meet with Ms. Lynn Coffin to discuss this file even though he said he didn't in the Public Accounts Committee initially, and in the confidential documents we had, which we didn't release, there were some notations in there from Bob Barton that are very relevant to this case. They clearly show that both of these people would have detailed information on these loans and information that, according to our solicitor - which I totally agree with the ruling on this - we have the right to get this information. I think it's long overdue and the government has been hiding all kinds of things, and it's time to come to an end.
MADAM CHAIR: So I would just add to that that there is, again - I know you're a new member on the subcommittee, but you've been on the Public Accounts Committee long enough to, I think, appreciate what the role of the Public Accounts Committee is, which is to scrutinize the decisions that government makes with respect to public funds.
MR. PARENT: Let's call for a question then, if you want to vote on it.
MADAM CHAIR: I just want to finish by saying that I think it potentially would be an abuse of privilege to call members of our Legislature before the Public Accounts Committee when they've had no involvement. They're not members of the Executive Council and they've had no involvement in the decision making around the allocation
[Page 8]
of public funds and the access to the information and the advice of the Public Service. Members of this committee haven't been able to find out what the public servants actually advised, and I think it's most unfair and unreasonable to imagine that a member of the Opposition would have that kind of influence or information. So clearly what this is, it's mischief making, and it's unacceptable, I think, for this committee.
MR. PARENT: Madam Chair, could I disagree with your last comment, please. As Chair, I don't think you should be making statements, it's mischief making. I didn't talk to Jim about this, but clearly he had his reasons for full disclosure of this and only wanted full disclosure. So as a member of this committee, you may make that statement but, as Chair, I think that it's out of place for you to make that statement about your vice-chair.
MADAM CHAIR: Well, I totally disagree with you. I'm really sort of sad with the turn of the tone of this subcommittee. We have been able to work in quite a collegial fashion until this moment. So I hope that doesn't continue.
We actually don't take votes, and we've attempted to operate by consensus, but if you want to have a vote on these potential witnesses then, certainly, I'm prepared to do this. So I'll break it up into the proposed witnesses as they appear here.
It was proposed by Mr. Colwell that Ms. Coffin and Mr. Barton be invited to come. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is carried.]
MADAM CHAIR: It has been proposed that Jim MacConnell and Lisa MacDonald from the Pictou Regional Development Corporation come. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is defeated.]
MADAM CHAIR: It has been proposed that Charlie Parker, the MLA for Pictou West, be called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
[The motion is defeated.]
MADAM CHAIR: So we will look at scheduling additional witnesses at some further time. We'll have to bring this back, I think, to the committee, is what we do, before we go further. Is there any other point of business?
[Page 9]
MR. PARENT: Motion to adjourn.
MADAM CHAIR: The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[The subcommittee adjourned at 12:57 p.m.]
