HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. Chuck Porter (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Alfred MacLeod
Mr. Keith Bain
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)
Mr. Keith Colwell
Mr. Stephen McNeil
Ms. Diana Whalen
In Attendance:
Ms. Mora Stevens
Legislative Committee Clerk
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2007
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
10:32 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Chuck Porter
MADAM CHAIR: I'd like to call the committee to order, please. We will proceed in the usual fashion. We have two items of business in front of us. At the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on November 29th, we had a motion that was stood for further discussion at the next scheduled meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, which is today. That motion is on the floor, and it is now open for discussion.
Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Madam Chair, before I move on to a discussion of the main motion, I do have an amendment to propose. I'd like to explain why I want to move an amendment to the motion. When I wrote this motion at the hearing that day, I struggled mightily with the last three words. The member for Sackville-Cobequid will confirm that I tried many different words to try to capture what it was that I was getting at, or I was hoping the committee would get at. The word I ended up choosing was punished, which in hindsight I think is too strong and doesn't send the right message of really what it is that I'm hoping the committee would do.
[Page 2]
So what I'd like to do, then, is begin the discussion by proposing the following amendment to the motion. I would like to propose that all the words after the comma in the last line be struck out, and that the following words be substituted, "with appropriate consequences as the House determines." I simply think that the words that I chose that day were too strong. I still believe that this committee ought to recommend to the House that Ms. Foley-Melvin be found in contempt, and I do believe that certain consequences should follow, I just think the word, punish, sent the wrong message about what I had in mind. When we get back to the main motion, perhaps I can address the point then about what exactly I do have in mind.
MADAM CHAIR: I just asked counsel, and he agrees with me, it occurs to me that this is your motion. It's likely a friendly amendment, you're just amending your own motion. So I see no problem with that. I don't think we have to have a discussion about that. The amendment is . .
MR. STEELE: So the motion I'm putting on the floor is, then, as written with that change now, which I'm proposing to my own motion. Again, after the comma, the words "with appropriate consequences as the House determines". So, getting on to the main motion, then . . .
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Madam Chair, this just can't simply be amended, because this was brought to the committee. I would suggest we have a vote on this amendment.
MADAM CHAIR: Well then, in that case, we will vote on the change. There has been a proposal that the motion be amended, that strikes "and punished accordingly", with the words "and appropriate consequences as the House determines".
Would all those in favour of the amendment, please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The change has been made. Thank you.
Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: On the main motion then, I do believe this is a very important matter. It is the first time in my five years on the committee where a witness who is not a politician has come before the committee and declined to answer questions that they did not wish to answer. Now we all agree that there are circumstances where a witness can, in good faith, decline to answer the question; for example, when deputy ministers are asked about whether they agree or don't agree with government policy. We've all
[Page 3]
agreed that that is not a legitimate question to put to a witness. We also agree that Cabinet confidentiality must be protected. In the case of Mr. Fage, of course, we felt that he was casting the net too wide, but we never objected to the idea that Cabinet confidentiality could be claimed in front of our committee.
This case is different. It is important because we need to send a message not to just Ms. Foley Melvin but to all witnesses who appear before the committee in the future, that it is the committee that decides what questions they will answer, not the witness. Ms. Foley Melvin delivered to the committee yesterday, a letter explaining why she feels that this motion should not pass today. The essence of what she is saying is that in her opinion the questions that I asked were not relevant and were not within the scope of the committee's work.
Now, I have to say that as a member who has sat on this committee for five years, and two years as the Chair, I don't necessarily take it very kindly when a witness appearing before us for the very first time in her life purports to be telling this committee, or members of the committee, what questions they can and can't ask, what questions are or are not relevant and, most importantly, what questions are or are not within the scope of the committee's work.
When Ms. Foley Melvin walked into the office of the Premier that day, she was four months into a one-year contract. When she walked out, she had a brand new three-year contract with a different job at the same salary. I think it is legitimate for the taxpayers of Nova Scotia to know, and their representatives on the committee, what happened in the office that day. So I do not for one minute accept Ms. Foley Melvin's argument that I don't have the right to ask her that question or that it wasn't relevant or not within the scope of the committee's work.
The other question she declined to answer, I frankly admit was not terribly important - the one about what her private sector salary was. I do think it is relevant to know whether Ms. Foley Melvin made sacrifices to join the Civil Service or whether this is the best payday that she's ever had in her life. However, if that had been the only question she declined to answer, I wouldn't be pursuing it.
The reason that it is still an issue is because it forms part of a larger pattern of her refusal to answer questions that she found uncomfortable to answer. Having read her letter, having had a number of weeks to reflect on all of this, I stand by the motion I made. This committee is now at a crossroads to decide, what are we going to do when we have a witness who won't answer a question? We need to be clear to witnesses appearing before us in the future that if they don't answer our questions, there will be consequences.
[Page 4]
The consequence I have in mind, what I would like to see happen here is that the House orders Ms. Foley Melvin to appear before the committee again and answer the question. That is the only consequence I have in mind, that is the only punishment I have in mind. I am not asking for anything more serious than that.
The reason it is being done this way is this committee does not have the power to enforce its own orders. This committee cannot find somebody in contempt. This committee does not have the power to impose any consequences on a witness who refuses to answer questions. It is only the House that has the power to do that. That is why we're referring the matter to the House, in order to enforce the right of this committee to expect that witnesses appearing before us will answer our questions.
If I may, Madam Chair, I would simply like to ask Legislative Counsel to confirm or not whether my understanding is correct, that it is only the House that has the power to find someone in contempt and to impose consequences for the refusal to answer a question.
MR. GORDON HEBB: Mr. Steele's understanding is correct.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: First of all I'd like to thank the honourable member for his motion and the amendment he made to the motion. My point was in making the amendment I wanted to make sure it was done properly and there was no discussion later on by anybody who said it wasn't done properly. I appreciate the Chair respecting that.
To start with, there's a couple of things I'm very concerned about in this whole process. When a person doesn't comply with a question from any member of our committee, that raises serious concerns. Again, Cabinet confidentiality is a different thing as long as it's not used with a very wide brush, as my honourable colleague has indicated. I am very upset about this letter actually; I'm very upset about this letter. I don't think this is appropriate. I think it's an attempt to quiet the committee without having to have any consequences or anything else happen or even answer the questions, because it doesn't address any of the questions that were asked that weren't answered. I don't think it's appropriate. It's within the person's right to send us a letter, but I think that it's inappropriate, especially when we're considering what should happen with this motion that has been put forward by Mr. Steele. I think it should have been, maybe, after the motion was considered.
However, I do have a problem, a minor problem, and I'm not saying that I'm against this motion whatsoever, because I'm not. I haven't had time since this letter has come in to take this back to my caucus. We've really got to take it back to our caucus. What I would like to do and would suggest, with the concurrence of the committee, is
[Page 5]
that we delay this until our next meeting, next week, no further than that, just until next week, until I have a chance to take this information back to caucus. The amendment doesn't matter, because it basically says, in a more appropriate way, I think, Mr. Steele has been very eloquent with what should be done with that, but this letter in particular and what action we would want to take at that time.
Again, I'm not opposed to the motion whatsoever. We need to go back to our caucus, and we just haven't had time to discuss this yet, until next week. So I would make that motion, to delay it for one week.
MADAM CHAIR: There's a motion on the floor, and now we have a motion to defer, which I think is permitted. Is there discussion on the motion to defer?
Mr. Steele.
[10:45 a.m.]
MR. STEELE: The motion put forward by Mr. Colwell on behalf of the Liberal caucus effectively kills this issue. My motion asks that the Chair of the committee report the matter to the House. Everyone in this room knows that the House is not going to be sitting at this time next week. The Liberal Party has made a great to-do about Ms. Foley Melvin and her appointments, and yet when the opportunity comes to actually do something about it, they are putting forward a motion where they don't actually have to vote against it, but they are effectively, by their use of procedure, killing the motion, ensuring that no consequences will ever be visited upon Ms. Foley Melvin, because the earliest opportunity we would then have to bring the matter before the House would be at the next session of the House, which may be March, April, May, we don't know when. At that point, the whole thing is that much more distant and less likely to result in any consequences.
So, let's be very clear about this. If the other Parties want to vote to defer this, that's fine, but let's be clear, what that is doing is killing any possibility of real consequences being imposed on Ms. Foley Melvin.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Wilson, then Mr. Colwell.
MR. DAVID WILSON (Sackville-Cobequid): Madam Chair, I, too, want to say a few words on the motion to defer it. With all due respect to the member for Preston, when this motion was brought forward to the committee last week, he had indicated at that time that he wanted to bring it back to his caucus for discussion for this meeting. I would have hoped he would have done that, and I won't support his motion. As Mr. Steele has stated and indicated, we all know the House won't be sitting probably after Friday. I think it's a shame that this issue can't be brought forward to be addressed. I
[Page 6]
think if he's genuine about his request or intention to support this motion that he would agree that it needs - time is a factor - to be addressed as soon as possible. With that, I won't support his motion to defer this to the next meeting.
MR. COLWELL: I think Mr. Steele is in error here. This will not kill this motion. This motion will still be alive when we sit in the House with more time to really explore it and get things in place. We have only basically three days of the House left now, and it's definitely not time enough for the House to consider this motion in detail and for the Speaker to give it consideration. I'm sure if we take this back - we've seen it before when we put the motions on the information which we're going to discuss next, I believe - that was not ruled on by the Speaker for some time.
So, this could be held up in a wrangle at the Speaker's level until he actually has an opportunity to go through all the ins and outs of this. Indeed, this will not kill the motion. It will give us enough time to consider the letter that's come here. I say, I'm not very happy with this. The motion, I believe, is a good motion, but we do need time to consider this information that came in and as a member of this committee and the sub-committee, I honestly have not had time to talk to my caucus about this new letter that's come in.
My opinion and my caucus will be exactly as I've said here, but again, this is a caucus decision and not my personal decision on this. I have to move this forward. It's not a process to eliminate this. I think this is an affront to the committee that Ms. Melvin has not answered the questions. Personally, I do not want to see this go away. I want to see these questions answered and I want to see them answered and appropriate action taken by the House, whatever that may be and have it in place so we won't have this happen again to our committee.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell, I want to ask you a question for clarification's sake. We had this motion first before us on the 29th and we stood it, to allow time for the various caucuses to have some reflection on it. Do you think it's possible to have that reflection in your caucus by Wednesday when our sub-committee meets? The Public Accounts Sub-Committee meets Wednesday of next week. Mr. Steele, I take your point - the House will not be in session, however the committee will continue to be doing its work. If we could get that commitment that on Wednesday we will have an ability to look at this resolution and move it forward to the Public Accounts Committee later at our meeting on Wednesday, then we will continue to take some action on it.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, I'm anxious to move this forward too, but again, the only reason is I really want to take this back to caucus.
MADAM CHAIR: So, Wednesday.
[Page 7]
MR. COLWELL: Wednesday, next week, one week from today.
MADAM CHAIR: One week from today. Yes. Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor to defer. Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of deferring this motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That has been put off for the time being.
The next matter we have in front of us is the consideration of the legal opinion we sought from Mr. Hebb, Legislative Counsel. As the Chair of the Sub-committee on Public Accounts, we met earlier today and we passed the following motion that I would now move and ask for approval from the Public Accounts Committee. The motion is as follows: That a report be prepared by the Public Accounts Committee based on the transcripts and documents of the former committee with respect to S&J Potato Farms Inc., and Village Developments Ltd. That the report be submitted to the House of Assembly and that the points of privilege raised earlier be contained in the body of the report.
That's the text. Perhaps Mr. Colwell or another member of the sub-committee could move that motion.
MR. COLWELL: I so move.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell, thank you. The floor is open for discussion on that motion. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I understand the sub-committee met earlier this morning to discuss the matter to make the recommendation. I thank the subcommittee for its work and I think it is an appropriate motion to support.
MADAM CHAIR: Any other discussion? Mr. Porter.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that, certainly our caucus felt that this discussion had taken place some time ago and with the dissolution of the House on May 13th, that that issue also was dissolved.
As we're all aware, Mr. Hebb provided some legal advice on that. There is an issue, however, of time. There was an opportunity in the first sitting of the House this past Fall, it was not brought forward and the committee needs to take that into consideration as well as to where that report may go. So our caucus certainly will be voting against that motion. Thank you.
[Page 8]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you for that. I want to be perfectly clear that the matter was put off at the request of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses who wanted to give the new members of the committee time to review the blanked-out documents that we received last Spring. So I'm not sure that time will actually be a factor there.
Let's be clear about what the issue is; the issue is not to revisit the substance of those files, in terms of the loans to S&J Potatoes or the loans to Village Developments, the issue in front of us is non-compliance of warrants that were issued from a standing committee of the Legislature, for information that this committee required to do its work. The implications of refusing to comply with warrants for duly elected members of the Legislature is a very serious matter, one that none of us should take lightly, regardless of what political Party we represent here. This is the matter that the report will be reporting on - it will be looking specifically at the non-compliance of the response to the warrants asking for certain information on those files.
So with that, we have a motion on the floor and I would ask that we take a vote now.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We stand adjourned until next Wednesday.
[The committee adjourned at 10:56 a.m.]
