HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr. Chuck Porter (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Keith Colwell
In Attendance:
Ms. Charlene Rice
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Jacques Lapointe
Auditor General
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2008
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
11:00 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
MADAM CHAIR: I'm going to call the subcommittee to order. The purpose of the subcommittee meeting today is primarily to follow up on the discussion we had around how to actually manage the large number of documents that we have with respect to releasing documents. I had made the suggestion that we consider releasing - we can release all of the documents that the department has indicated they have no problem with releasing, that's not in question. The documents that are in question become those documents that the department has said they have concerns about because they have personal information, because they have proprietary information or because of the federal-provincial relations.
Now, my suggestion was that what we would do is, because of the large number of documents, we would ask members - we don't prohibit members from using those documents that have been identified as documents that they are concerned about but we would ask members to identify the documents that they are going to make reference to that contain any of those three kinds of information: proprietary, federal-provincial or personal. Then those are the documents that we scrutinize and censor, possibly release or not release.
That's my proposal because in that way all of those other documents become sort of irrelevant and they never get released in the public domain. They're certainly there and available for the members but it's the members of the committee who actually, by their use of documents, what they want to use, will essentially give us the basis of the documents that we then have to censor in some way. Do you see what I'm saying? Does that make sense?
Have you had a chance to discuss that or think about it? What are your thoughts on proceeding in that manner? Mr. Colwell.
[Page 2]
MR. KEITH COLWELL: Madam Chair, we have to have some kind of way to handle all of this stuff . . .
MADAM CHAIR: Some way to what?
MR. COLWELL: To handle all this material.
MADAM CHAIR: That's right, that's what we're trying to do.
MR. COLWELL: We have to have. We haven't come up with anything that I think is any better, yet. I was, at the last meeting, not all in favour of this because it sometimes restricts what we can ask at a time. If something changes from the time we say we're going to talk about these documents and then other documents, the only concern I would have is if we had particular witnesses in here, whoever they might be, that indeed if something transpires as we're discussing the issues with that witness and we have more information there and we can't use it, it may inhibit what we're really trying to get to. That's the only concern I have with that. Other than that, I really have no concern with it.
Possibly if we could have those witnesses back again, if we needed to, only if we needed to, to use more information if we set up that kind of structure that would be helpful. I don't know how to handle it past that, at this point. I'm not objecting to it but again I don't want to restrict or tie the hands of the committee in order to get the proper cross-examination of the witnesses, I should say, or questions from the witnesses or whatever you want to call it, to the witnesses. That's the only concern I have.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. Mr. Porter.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: I have a similar concern, I guess. This is a tremendous amount of stuff, it's well out of my scope, engineering how it shall all be released and what should be released and I think probably I am of the opinion, as I stated in probably the first meeting, that there are some things that probably shouldn't be released and I will stand by that. However, the majority of the committee, whatever, will decide how that goes.
The absolute biggest concern I have is any blacking out, or whatever you want to call it, of certain things, has got to be done in a manner whereby it cannot be burning through paper and be held up to a light and be read. I don't know how that all went down the last time but I do want to stress that we have some professionals, I am sure, that are more than capable of releasing things, blacking them out in the most appropriate and proper way.
We jeopardized, in my opinion - people's names, apparently, could be seen through, so I'm just concerned about that.
[Page 3]
MADAM CHAIR: Yes, and I totally accept your concerns. I share your concerns and what I understand has happened is that we've had the assistance of the privacy individuals, in terms of what they do, what their method is, the mechanics of actually blocking out information and what have you. So now that is something that we know how to do for documents that we release. The question of going through - we don't have the labour power, we don't have the staff to go through every single, solitary document in those boxes up there and black out and xerox and all of that stuff, and we still have the problem of what we release and what we don't release in the scrutiny of the subcommittee over that.
So the idea of having members of the committee indicate to the clerk the documents that they think they'll be using, in advance, that allows the clerk to pull those documents, put them into a separate binder, remove any identifying personal information and have it in a form that it can be released at the public committee process, through the public committee process, as we usually do. That is one way.
Now the question about additional, you know last-minute or close to the time of the committee meeting, how would we deal with a committee member who has just recognized that there's another document that they would like to use and they haven't named that document, they haven't indicated in advance. I wouldn't want, as Chair, to put a prohibition on a member who wants to use a document that they have the legitimate right to have access to and to use in their questioning. I think we'd have to find a way for a member to say, Madam Chair, I didn't include this on my list but I'm going to make reference to a document, not use the identifying information if it's personal around a nominee.
I think that's one of the things that we have been really concerned about, especially since there has been a stress that there are social security numbers, there is driver's licence information, there's banking information and frankly, I don't see any of the members using that information, it would be a first at this committee. But that document, to have it released if it contained that information, would not be something that we would want to happen. We would have to make those instructions, clarify what we're recommending to the committee, I guess, in terms of how it is that documents would and should be used in here. Mr. Porter.
[11:15 a.m.]
MR. PORTER: A couple of things, one question. When we went through that first bunch of painful paperwork, did it all get released with the exception of the blacking out of something?
MADAM CHAIR: No, no. We made decisions . . .
MR. PORTER: I'm trying to think back how far, how much didn't or if it all . . .
[Page 4]
MADAM CHAIR: We made decisions that day that, for example, in that first batch of documents there were all of the companies that had submitted proposals in response to an RFP on evaluating the Nominee Program, right? We said that we have no interest in releasing their proposals and their business plans for that.
The names of all of those companies who have bid were already in the public domain, so there was no reason not to release information that said who the bidders were but we did not release any of that information. We did release the successful bid but that was also already in the public domain, was out there, so that kind of stuff.
The department, for example, wanted Stephen Lockyer and his business partner, his name removed from an awful lot of things. Any place that Cornwallis and Stephen Lockyer were referred to in the documents, they took the position that that was proprietary information belonging to Cornwallis. We directed the clerk to make contact with Mr. Lockyer and ask him what his view was on the committee releasing documentation that we were given that was specific to Cornwallis. We gave the clerk the direction that what he had to say didn't mean that that was necessarily what we would do but we wanted to consult with him around his views of what might be proprietary, in terms of Cornwallis' business.
The clerk did do that and she informed me that Mr. Lockyer said he had no difficulty with anything that we had being released, in terms of those documents. So the result of that was that the department said this is business and proprietary but we said, no, we've done our due diligence, in terms of checking with the business owner and this is his position. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: Thank you. So let's raise something that's of great concern, I think, to all of us here. We've decided apparently on February 13th that we're going to invite nominees, mentors, et cetera, to come in. That's fine. Things change a bit because if those people are coming forward to this committee, everything is on the table - their names, there are going to be questions surrounding each and every aspect of that program, through the nominee themselves - him or her - as well as the mentor.
So this committee is partially releasing some stuff that is relative to exactly this, and we're tossing around something that I'm not sure even makes sense any more because there's so much stuff that my mind is a bit boggled with it all. When we think about blacking out, not releasing, releasing, and then we are actually inviting, have invited people to come forward, those people are going to be in the public domain and questioned accordingly.
So everything and anything is wide open at that point in time. Once we bring them before this committee, from the media on down, there's a whole variety of things that could come out. I agreed when we met that that's a good plan and we're going to invite them, if they so desire to come. I think we've created something that we're not sure about, maybe, when I look back.
[Page 5]
I guess all I'm saying is, and maybe Legal Counsel can advise as well, there's an issue whereby these folks need to be in agreement with that and I guess probably they won't come if they're not in agreement, I don't know. Maybe Gordon can speak to that in more detail, I'm not a lawyer.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Hebb, would you like to make a comment?
MR. GORDON HEBB: Well, certainly if they agree to come that doesn't mean they need to answer all the questions, if there are things that they would not like to talk about in public and there's always the option, if the committee wants to pursue it, of going in camera. I'm presuming that you're not going to subpoena anybody, so it's going to be voluntary. I don't know if there's a big issue in that regard.
MADAM CHAIR: We will conduct this with witnesses in the same way, I would assume, that we would conduct with any other witnesses that are here. This is a little different in that we're inviting people who we don't know in any way. I think the Law Amendments Committee process, in fact, is sort of a template; you have a time, you invite people, they call the clerk, they register. We'll get a list when we actually convene that day and that's the way I think we should proceed. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: Well, I think we're talking about two different things. One thing is we want to - and I think this is unanimous from everybody in this room and all our committee members that even aren't here, we don't want to release any information on any individual or any company that would cause a problem for that individual, short term or long term. What we're talking about is bringing witnesses in here voluntarily, like you've said.
They're not going to tell us how old they are, what their birth date is or their social insurance number, they're not going to give us their bank account numbers and we're not going to ask for those things, we want to hear what their experience was. What we may ask, someone may ask and probably will is what did it cost you. That's not asking what your bank account number is, so I think we're talking about two different things here.
My only caution to the committee on the information that we're given, I would suggest that before each witness comes that the Chair indicates if there's anything that the individuals who are coming on a voluntary basis don't want made public, to let the Chair know and we will go in camera on anything they want to discuss. But each individual should be told that when they come to the committee so that they're aware of that, they have that option if they have that available.
Based on other things that happened in other committees, where there have been some inappropriate questions asked of different things, those problems have been resolved, so I think it's going to be incumbent on the Chair, which I know you do a very capable job of it - to ensure that there's nothing in the conversations that is construed to be confidential
[Page 6]
in nature that continues questioning or anything like that, that we should immediately stop the questioning and go in camera if that's the case.
MADAM CHAIR: We have a written statement that we do give to all witnesses before they come, each time they come. We'll follow that procedure and I will also take the opportunity to let people know that if there is a question that they don't feel comfortable with they can appeal to me, as the Chair, for either not answering it or going in camera to answer it, because that is sort of the standard procedure.
I want to get back to the documents, the handling of the documents, the releasing of documents. As we all know, we have this massive amount of paper now that has been distributed to each of the caucuses. There continue to be materials coming in; Charlene received materials on Friday from the office and they had identified some documents that they had missed. As soon as that comes in we send everything along to the caucus offices.
The question I think we have to try to figure out is when we have our public hearing with the witnesses, next week and in following weeks, how do we handle the documents that people will be referring to in this committee that have not been released yet? Should we be releasing documents or not releasing documents? What documents do we release and how do we release them? Mr. Hebb.
MR. HEBB: I don't see why we can't treat those documents in the same fashion as the ones that the members of the committee have identified in advance, except that they will be reviewed after the meeting, they won't be released at the time of the meeting if the members refer to other documents that haven't been pre-examined. They can just be then referred back to the subcommittee for review before they're released. There's no requirement that there be immediate release of documents that the members have referred to.
MADAM CHAIR: That would seem to be a sensible way to do it. We could send a memo around to our members of the committee asking if they are going to be making reference to documents to let the clerk know - just documents that have the prohibition on them - so she will be able to have a little package of those documents prepared. If there are additional documents raised in the committee meeting we will ask people to make note that this is a document that's not on the list and the subcommittee then can review those documents. If there is identifying information in any of the categories that we feel should not be released, we will then deal with that.
Is that acceptable to people as the way that we will go? Yes? And that cuts down on the amount of work that we will end up requiring our clerk and the staff in that office to do with respect to scrutinizing documents for public information. We've already said we don't want any identifying information of nominees, that's very important, or proprietary business information.
[Page 7]
The federal-provincial stuff is a problem that I have because the department has cast the net very broadly on that. Almost any correspondence, any document between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the Nominee Program, they have asked that they not be dealt with in public. I don't know if members will want to be using those documents in public in the first place. Perhaps we should just wait and see what it is that members want, but they've cast the net very, very broadly on that one, the department has. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: I think the process that you've identified looks good at this point. With release, there are pages and pages of documents they didn't give us, those ones concern me a bit - more than a bit - but again, we'd have to go through a process like we did in the past of looking at those documents, talking to the department about it like we had in the past and seeing why they want to curtail. Those are probably the documents we really want to see. Everything else they've given us will be interesting, I'm sure there's some information in there that may help us as we work away.
I would like to propose that we're going to have more witnesses down the road. I would like an opportunity to take a section of those documents and get the staff back in here again from the departments and go through those ones that they won't give us to find out what they are. At least before they would send us a document that said this is a Cabinet meeting on this date and it's privileged information for whatever reason. They haven't even done that, they just gave us a list this time. So I'd like to see a few of those documents, maybe we could get our staff to pick out 20 of them or some number, and each staff from each office do the same thing, and we just go through them with the staff and see what the story on those documents are. That I'm concerned about.
I know in the past when we were working on Magic Valley and S&J Potatoes files, a lot of those documents were there that were the cause of a lot of controversy and I don't want to see that happening again, because the document list is longer and longer this time that they're not giving us and when they're all added up they might be as close to what they gave us. So we're not getting a full picture of what has gone on here and this whole system has been less than desirable from the standpoint of bringing immigrants to Nova Scotia. So I want to have a look at those things again, or for the first time I should say. I think we should schedule a meeting to do that of the subcommittee.
MADAM CHAIR: We certainly can do that. I think in the correspondence that was received on January 11th from Ms. Penfound, she indicated that there is - or there is going to be - a revised version of the documents that have been withheld. I don't think we have that yet, do we? We're getting a revised version. We have two options: we could wait to see that, and probably that's what we should do, get the revised version of the list that has been withheld and then schedule a time to meet to discuss . . .
[Page 8]
[11:30 a.m.]
MR. COLWELL: I think our committee should have a deadline on that for them to provide it. I don't want to see it's next September before they supply it. I think all this information is relevant and some of the witnesses we're going to have in, the amount of information we really need for those isn't as important as the questions we're going to ask around the whole issue and how it all works. Some documents will be very important to that, but as we get into the documents and we review the documents that we don't have - and why we haven't got them is as important as what we're going to hear from the witnesses, I feel.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay, we'll communicate with Ms. Penfound and we'll look at our schedule to provide a date when we think we should have that revised list. I think we have more or less sorted out the way that we'll try to proceed around these documents and the handling of documents.
The other thing I'd like, if we could look at the subcommittee report that was put off today, just to see if we could get some clarity around the witnesses. When we met last time we knew that we had the Department of Economic Development coming in next week and the clerk has been working hard at organizing the forum with the nominees and mentors and that now has been scheduled, we have a confirmed date for that. We had wanted to keep the work of the Public Accounts Committee moving forward and each of the caucuses had brought forward on their list their next priority issue. The Department of Justice and Public Prosecution Service, we already had them scheduled and then they were bumped, I think, for the Nominee Program earlier on. This comes from the NDP list and I'd like to maintain that and we'll continue to look at a time.
The Department of Environment and Labour, I think e-waste was the suggestion and that's the focus that you would like to have, rather than all of those other topics.
MR. PORTER: Yes, I'm not sure how all of those extras got added onto that, but e-waste was the concern we were wanting.
MADAM CHAIR: Yes, that's what I thought as well, but that's okay, we'll just modify that.
MR. COLWELL: E-waste is very important and what they're going to do around that, but I'd like to keep at least one of those other issues on that list in case we run out of questions on the e-waste program. All these are serious issues and some of them pretty complex issues. One thing I'd like to leave with the e-waste, if we have time and only if we have time during the meeting, is the air quality monitoring, I'd like to leave that on there. The rest are major issues and at least some of those can be a meeting on their own.
[Page 9]
MADAM CHAIR: Okay, is that agreeable? We'll do e-waste and air quality monitoring. As you know, there's nothing to prohibit a member from exploring any topic within a department that they wish, but it is true, it's much more helpful, the clerk has to put together background information on the focus and the topic. The witnesses generally come with a prepared statement that speaks to the focus, so I think it is true that they're all very important topics, but probably if we do e-waste and air quality monitoring.
It was in retrospect, actually, after we left the meeting, that it occurred to me that we might run into some trouble with the third thing that's on this list, given that this really is largely a topic where there is a bill that's in front of the House. While it's a very important area, I'm not sure that we have the mandate or the authority to really look at that particular issue in this committee. I think that came from the Liberal caucus so, Mr. Colwell, I'll give you the first kick at the can on that.
MR. COLWELL: Yes, we still want to have them in, but we should appropriately take out anything that's referred to in the legislation that's before the House. We still have health human resources issues that we want to discuss.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: I think given where we're at with regard to health human resources, it's timely, it should stay on the list, that piece of it. As far as the legislative piece, I agree, we should remove that until such time as it's appropriate.
MADAM CHAIR: I think that certainly following up on what we've had here today, it would be a good topic. I'm wondering about the Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations as part of that. They are an organization that's not a body of government, per se, and perhaps we should just stick with the Department of Health and bring them in with respect to health human resources. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: No, even though they're not a department of government, I'd like them to come in as well because I'd like to have balanced answers to some of these questions. They might shed some light on this issue that the Department of Health doesn't, for whatever reason. It doesn't hurt to invite them.
MR. PORTER: I'm not opposed to them being invited.
MADAM CHAIR: Okay. I just think that we have to be careful, in terms of the role of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinize the financial and policy decisions of government with respect to financial expenditures. We've been very reluctant to bring in TIANS or other industry bodies associated with the offshore, associated with tourism and different groups that have been suggested. It's not really the practice of the committee, so
[Page 10]
that's my reluctance. It's not that I don't think they have an important perspective but in a way it's a deviation from what the focus of the committee generally is. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: I wonder, Madam Chair, having said that I guess and thinking about it being a human resources issue, if it shouldn't maybe appear before that committee initially and it could certainly end up on this agenda but it may be better served with the ability to invite and ask a variety of different questions pertaining to this agenda item.
So again, I'm not opposed to that either, I just throw it out there for some discussion.
MR. CHAIR: Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: I'd like to see it stay in the form we're suggesting here because health is a serious, serious issue and it does have a serious economic impact on the province. We've identified some things today that I think need to be pursued further and other things that are really causing us problems with the health care system and the cost of that system, so I think it's very appropriate to have them here.
MADAM CHAIR: Well, I'm not sure what to do. My concern again, it's not that it's not serious - I totally agree with you, it's a serious issue. They've got a perspective that I think is probably quite interesting and useful but in the context of what it is the Public Accounts Committee does and opening the door and I don't want us to create the impression that the public - we already receive a fair number of requests. You get a company that is unsuccessful, for example, in a competitive bidding process or no competitive bidding process, who wants to come and air their concerns to the Public Accounts Committee. I understand why they would like to do that but we could end up spending all our time doing that kind of thing because there are always disgruntled companies or interest groups that represent a particular perspective that would love to have access to the Public Accounts Committee because it is such an important committee.
Then that takes the attention away, sometimes, from the opportunity to question and really look at the government department and what their decisions have been. It could create some difficulties for us, I think, in terms of the expectations, but I will be guided by the majority of the committee, what you want to do.
Mr. Porter, if you're prepared to have the Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations in, then I would be happy to do that. If not, then I think probably we'll have to look at recommending that they appear in front of the Human Resources Committee and we would stick with health human resources as a topic for the Department of Health, I really think that, yes.
[Page 11]
MR. PORTER: I would agree, giving this a little bit more thought. Every committee sees witnesses and topics and issues that are related to finance in some way or another, so perhaps it should go there.
It is a bit of a slippery slope inviting some groups outside the norm here. I don't think we want to spend all our time on that. I think we have an agenda and a focus here that we should stick to, not to say that it couldn't come back here, and it very well may, given that we go down that road and there are significant financial matters that we may very well find come before us within Health. I would recommend that maybe that be referred to the HR Committee for a witness there.
MADAM CHAIR: This is one of your topics, so if you think we've distorted in some way a priority issue for you and if you want to bring forward another topic from your list, we could do that, I'd be open to doing that. I want to be fair to your caucus to get the issues that you want to pursue here. Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: With the subcommittee's indulgence, I would like to leave the Department of Health on our list. We will come back with a new topic, an associate topic with the Department of Health, because it's very important to us and we want to do that and we will do that very shortly and let the subcommittee know and make sure that you agree to it. We could probably do that within two days.
MADAM CHAIR: So would you be okay with this? We will bring the Department of Health in on health human resources because that fits, it just won't have the NSAHO component, and in addition to that you will get another topic from your list because we've kind of distorted, in a way, what your proposal is, okay?
MR. COLWELL: That's satisfactory.
MADAM CHAIR: Good. Is there anything else that we need to sort of sort out at this time? We should probably schedule another subcommittee meeting, perhaps after our meeting next Wednesday? Would that be agreeable if we met at the end of our Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday coming up for half an hour? It would give us an opportunity to look at any documents that need to be released.
MR. PORTER: Are we here for three hours next week?
MADAM CHAIR: No.
MR. PORTER: Is that an error?
MADAM CHAIR: Is it a three-hour meeting next week?
[Page 12]
MR. PORTER: When I saw that I didn't know, I don't remember discussing that, but that doesn't always mean - I don't know why it was three hours, but . . .
MADAM CHAIR: I think at the time we probably said three hours, I'm not sure that we will be here for three hours.
MR. PORTER: No, that's what I was wondering.
MR. COLWELL: If it goes to three hours we've got other commitments, of course, on Wednesdays. If we're over at 11:00 a.m., no problem. If not . . .
MADAM CHAIR: If we're over at 11:00 a.m., a half-hour subcommittee meeting? Perfect. Thank you very much and we will now adjourn.
[The committee adjourned at 11:44 a.m.]
