HANSARD

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Keith Colwell (Chairman)

Hon. Ronald Chisholm

Mr. Keith Bain

Mr. Chuck Porter

Mr. Clarrie MacKinnon

Ms. Vicki Conrad

Mr. Leonard Preyra

Ms. Diana Whalen

Mr. Harold Theriault

[Mr. Chuck Porter was replaced by Hon. Cecil Clarke.]

[Ms. Diana Whalen was replaced by Mr. Wayne Gaudet.]

In Attendance:

Ms. Jana Hodgson

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Legislative Counsel

HALIFAX, THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

9:00 A.M.

CHAIRMAN

Mr. Keith Colwell

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll call the meeting to order. We'll start by going around the table and have everyone introduce themselves.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. We're here today to discuss the unfinished business from our previous meeting and a letter basically from Ms. Vicki Harnish, Deputy Minister of Finance. So who would like to start the discussion? Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. CLARRIE MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, looking at Ms. Harnish's letter, it looks more like a muzzled bureaucrat than anything else in relation to this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke.

HON. CECIL CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back and maybe just provide some context. I would humbly disagree with the member for Pictou East with regard to his comments and really if he goes back, quite frankly, this letter is precipitated by the deputy minister being the civil servant attending this committee.

I was in this room for a portion of that proceeding and when one puts in context the fact that she was asked to come to talk about matters that, quite frankly, are those of the minister and the prerogative of the Executive Council branch and of the Cabinet Minister - if you look at the transcripts which I have with regard to the types of questions she was being asked, most of those were being asked in a nature about definitive amounts regarding budgetary items that would not have been her knowledge.

Quite frankly if you look at the point in time, especially around the budgetary planning process, that information is subject to the minister and until the minister officially gets up and actually presents the budget before the House, those numbers are quite frankly, for her to comment would be speculative.

I know, Mr. Chairman, for yourself as a former member of the Executive Council and as a minister dealing with your civil servants, you in your portfolio would have called upon them for scenarios to look at options and at the end of the day as a minister you made a decision and not your civil servants; they would make a recommendation. So I would say in the context of that and I also know when you take that context and look at where the civil servant who was brought before the committee - how, quite frankly, I felt that she was being treated. In fact, I looked at it more of an interrogation but at the same time, in fairness, there are a couple of comments and I think it is reflected in the letter that she has submitted especially with regard to the media item and I do recognize in the heat of a moment and after a very long session of being under pressure and demands for information that wouldn't have been within her mandate to provide.

So I'm not looking to try to get into a large legislative debate here with my colleagues today other than I believe she represented her interests, she tried to provide the information, she brought information. Whether it was what the committee wanted to see versus what the minister should be asked to account for, which is a matter that we have the opportunity today with regard to the House resuming, to allow that minister to represent what it is his numbers are.

I mean we have a process established, Mr. Chairman, and in no way, shape or form would anyone have been muzzled, to use the word that has been quoted by the member for Pictou East, and I do recognize that from time to time we'll always have political debate and we will always have to disagree but we also have to recognize that we as parliamentarians, especially after coming through a year where we have celebrated the great history that started the foundation here and the pillars of democracy that we like to hold up and defend to our citizens and we've asked them to engage in that process. Those three pillars would be the executive branch of government, i.e. the Cabinet; the legislative branch that we all sit as members of; and the judicial branch that has its own independent function that has to operate.

We in Nova Scotia like to say that our democracy is founded on a fourth pillar, which is the freedom of the press that was established here in Nova Scotia, and in that with even the media that they have the ability to have confident the information provided to them and from there they disclose that, so there is a level of accountability. Our accountability is before the Legislature. If you have issues with the Minister of Finance that is fair, if you have questions for the Minister of Finance, we have that forum and indeed, at the end of the day, from committee to the House, that is where the ultimate authority, as we all know, will rest.

I believe, in looking at this, if we want to have a parliamentary debate that continues from this room to the House, then that is the prerogative of the members and/or the committee but I feel that the deputy minister as a civil servant came here, made a best effort to provide the answers to which she had authority to do. The questions she could not answer are ultimately decisions of the minister and that minister is in the process of at least attempting to get a budget presented to the House so that Nova Scotians can pass judgment on what his numbers and his final decisions are.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I take strong exception to the comments that were just made. Number one, we were looking for information on the state of the economy, we were not asking for budgetary information. Most of the questions that were directed to the deputy minister involved the state of the economy. To talk about 250 years of democracy when members of the Nova Scotia Legislature cannot get information from a deputy minister, basic information, it is an insult to the democratic process in this Province of Nova Scotia and I strongly, strongly take exception to the comments that were made. (Interruptions)

I take exception to this business as well, I didn't do that to him, I think that's a bit of an insult as well, to make these kinds of gestures. You were allowed to say your remarks without any gesturing on my part. I don't think that's called for at all and I take exception to that as well. I still think we're dealing with a deputy minister who was muzzled, and severely muzzled, and it was an insult to democracy in this province. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. LEONARD PREYRA: I want to thank the minister for his statement. I just want to restate our position from the last couple of meetings where this issue has come up. This is not about the deputy minister, it's about ministerial responsibility, it's about the role of government, it's about the role of committees, it's about the role of Parliament.

We have just celebrated 250 years and the minister and I sat on the committee and we both worked very well together on that issue but at the heart of that issue was the question of representative government and the elected members of the government, of the Legislature, representing the people, holding the government accountable, making sure that particularly public finances are examined as rigorously as possible, that's what parliamentary democracy is about. It's about the "no taxation without representation" principle and when the House doesn't sit for as long as this government has had the House out, the committees serve an important role in fulfilling that duty as a representative of the people.

I think what happened in this committee over the last several meetings has really been an abuse of that role of Parliament and of our privileges as MLAs. It appears that the government deliberately directed a deputy minister to not co-operate with a committee of the House, that's a serious breach of parliamentary privileges and our own privileges as MLAs.

So it's not about the deputy minister, it's about this government not meeting in the House and not co-operating with an important committee of the House.

In terms of the context, we were looking at this situation and are looking at this situation in the context of an economic crisis that is, you know, we really haven't seen this kind of crisis since the Depression. The government was spending billions of dollars and is spending billions of dollars, people's pensions were at stake, jobs are being lost all over the place and it's important for the Economic Development Committee to know what this government is planning to do or was planning to do with the crisis at hand. It had nothing to do with the budget as such but it had everything to do with what the government's strategy was for responding to the crisis and we didn't get a response to that.

The fact that the government took what appears to be a stand based on some principle that's non-existent, that the minister can direct any member of the bureaucracy to not co-operate with the committee and we're expected to accept that decision, I think is wrong not just for now but it insults 250 years of democracy that we fought for and it ties the hands of future committees that will want to examine government finances and government spending. So it's an important issue, both looking back at our history and all of those privileges that former MLAs and committees fought for and what future committees will want. It's an important principle for us to defend and I think it's why we are going to see this through to the end. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke.

MR. CLARKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is what parliamentary debate is all about. To my honourable colleague, the member for Pictou East, I would say that in the running of the House I don't think any of us have ever sat quietly while other members were saying things, especially when they use precipitous language, such as muzzle, nor would that member allow me to do likewise. I know that the member for Pictou East would, if in the House he said something, would have his say from his seat and that's part of the parliamentary process of our ability to express ourselves, not just in words but, indeed, in the form upon which we articulate where we are.

[9:15 a.m.]

But to come back, again what I took exception to is to suggest that someone was muzzled. Now, we also have to go, Mr. Chairman, and look at the functions of committees and the mandates of committees and, indeed, while they may be broad, you also had a civil servant come here from a different portfolio that takes data with regard to the economy, to ask for finance - if you were to suggest, quite frankly, that the deputy minister or officials from Economic and Rural Development, the minister who deals with matters for Economic Development, to come before this committee.

Quite frankly, to suggest that somebody else who has to take data that is provided, data they use for making assumptions and those assumptions, again, are used to form the basis of what a minister would choose to decide and use those numbers upon which, as you know, in our process that we have with accountability, once the minister has made his decisions with regard to those numbers, it is not the deputy minister who makes those decisions, it is the minister. Therefore, it is the minister who also takes that information that forms the basis of those assumptions that go into a budget, that is then provided to the Auditor General, as you know, to verify that they meet with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

To ask questions about a point in time and to ask a civil servant, who has a function to do with the finance accounting aspect of government, to make assumptions and provide information about the broader economy when the Department of Economic and Rural Development has that mandate and this committee would look to that, I believe there is a separation.

I'm not trying to get into an argument, I'm not trying to say that people do not have a responsibility to come before this committee to provide this committee with information, the question is, what is the level of information that is appropriate? So rather than get into language, I'm just trying to stay, and I would be willing to stay, within the realms of what was the intended purpose and the correspondence that has gone back and forth.

Now while we may agree to disagree on what our interpretation is and again, that is something we often have to do in elected life, I still come back to the fact that we had a civil servant come before this committee, who was asked in no small measure, this committee that I recall did not have a predefined set of information that she could have at least had the ability to know the types of questions you would ask her and to be able to consult broadly amongst her other colleagues in government and the other members of the Civil Service that have a role and function with the economy, what aspects of the economy you are concerned about.

Yes, I do agree that we are in a different time. You know as far as talking about the time of debate in the Legislature, well, if our colleagues would like to commit to a full session I'd welcome that as well, and to have the time to have the appropriate debate. So that's a matter for later today.

If the honourable member would like to have lots of extra time, we can do that in the House, in the building of the Legislature to do that. So I'm fully prepared to have the length and duration of discussion and government is attempting to do that, but on the basis of the matter before us, I think there are two items here that I've read into it. One, it's a media-related issue in terms of someone making a statement or commenting to media outside the purview of the meeting. The civil servant has recognized that was not probably the most appropriate thing with regard to commenting on the proceedings. I do believe in the heat of

the moment and being in that position, she may have felt that way and recognized that was not something that was appropriate. I also think any of us would recognize that.

We all know that what we say as parliamentarians in our formal sessions versus what we say outside these rooms, there's a different level and measure of accountability and so on - that point I do recognize - and I appreciate the fact that she reflects that as a matter that should not have occurred.

As for the answering of questions for this committee, as you know, the committee reports to the House and has an ability to reflect if it's satisfied or not. But on the basis of was she muzzled, again, I don't think that is the case. I think she was merely on the basis of what information specifically would she have had within her function, as a civil servant. If the committee were to, either through the minister or the department directly - looked to have the types of questions and the questions that were being asked go well beyond her immediate mandate.

Her mandate is to take information and to provide those numbers as counsel to her minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Theriault.

MR. HAROLD THERIAULT: We've reviewed Ms. Harnish's letter of apology and we've accepted that. I guess what we can't accept is a minister directing a public servant on how they can answer questions at this committee. If this happens from the Finance Minister, can all Ministers of the Crown direct all public servants not to answer at these committees? Doesn't that make these committees useless?

I think there are lots of questions to be answered here, because any public servant we bring into these committees from now on can be directed by their minister on what to say and what not to say. I think I just want to leave that as a question on what we're opening up here. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, why did we have the deputy minister appear before this committee? Why did we have the Deputy Minister of Finance appear before this committee? That has to be the basic question we ask here today. The reason why was because the last financial update that we had was in December.

We were, and are, the last province in this great nation to bring forward a budget. We had no information, the people of Nova Scotia had no information from this government on the financial outlook and the economic conditions that exist within the province. That is why

she was asked to appear here. In essence, as I've said before, it seems we have had a government in hiding in relation to the financial outlook of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: I just want to come back to the minister's remarks. We did not ask for an apology from the deputy minister and what we have here is not an apology from the deputy minister. What we have here is an explanation from the deputy minister that she was given instructions by the minister not to co-operate with this committee and she was respecting that direction that was given to her by the minister. She's saying she found it extremely frustrating to be asked questions by this committee to which she was directed not to respond.

We did not expect an apology from her. Our issue is with the minister directing a deputy minster or any public servant to say, don't co-operate with that committee. If we accept that principle, as the honourable member for Digby-Annapolis says, we are setting ourselves down a slope where the committee system itself becomes useless, especially when a government refuses to meet the House. It could be a government that can go forever, really, without any accountability or without any transparency.

It's really important for us to protect that principle that these kinds of instructions cannot be just described as questions of privilege for the minister and that we have to accept that, and I think that's really the point here. It's not the deputy minister not answering questions, it's a question of the minister and the government refusing to be held accountable and refusing to be transparent with a committee of the House and with members of the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke.

MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the last two speakers, I obviously would disagree with that comment and the comments that have been raised. Specific to the fact - and I'll come back to the honourable member for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island - again there is role and function, and even to the member for Digby-Annapolis, I do recognize and I do accept - I mean we have a Public Accounts Committee whereby the deputy minister and/or Finance officials would be there to account for that. So it's about the role and function of a committee versus the lack of accountability by the Civil Service and/or through the ministers.

Again, we have a committee asking a civil servant from one department that has a normal reporting function through the Public Accounts Committee, being asked to come here and make comments about the economy and then associate them back with the financial projections of what the minister would have and, again, the minister, in fairness to the civil

servants, it is the minister who makes those decisions and it is the minister who owns those numbers.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, you, as a Minister of the Crown, when you had advice, those things were matters of advice and from there, you as a minister and/or as a Cabinet would make decisions based upon those. So I'm not trying to dispute but the minister is responsible for those numbers and, again, if this committee wants the Economic Development Minister to come forward, and/or that deputy, to talk about the wider economy, that is most appropriate. If we want to talk about the Public Accounts of this province, then we should bring that forward to the Public Accounts Committee versus the other matters that would deal with this and, quite clearly, we were into budgetary matters in that committee meeting.

If we would like to go back and review the Hansard page by page, we can look at those questions, question by question, and then we'll determine what really should have been a civil servant's response versus that of the minister and, as you know, in talking about getting to the House, and the member for Pictou East who would say a delay in getting to a budget, well, he would know as a very studious and astute member that it was this date last year that the budget was presented.

This year, Mr. Chairman, within extraordinary economic times, unlike other provinces that have gone with early budgets, they are now revising those numbers because they got in there and made assumptions that now are not correct, and we've worked those numbers through with a budget. So in terms of budget processes, I would recognize that in 2004-05 we were in on April 22^nd; 2005-06, April 26^th - of course, in 2006, we were back in July; and the end of March in 2007-08.

Mr. Chairman, if someone would suggest that we're delaying or hiding from the House, the facts of the House speak with regard to the process and I would say to my honourable colleagues we would dearly love to be able to go in with another consecutive balanced budget, but that again is subject to the dealings of the Legislature. So I would welcome that opportunity and I would welcome the opportunity for the Minister of Finance to be able to deal and address these questions, and I'm sure members will deal with that.

So I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, obviously there's a difference of where we look at this with regard to who is responsible for what and I don't think in any way, shape or form - if you feel as members of this committee and as parliamentarians of the Parliament of Nova Scotia that you are not satisfied with the minister's accountability, then I think that should be brought up within the Legislature appropriately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: Mr. Chairman, the minister really is playing fast and loose with the facts when he talks about the Public Accounts Committee and the House having the right to examine these kinds of issues. The fact is that this issue came up before the Public Accounts Committee and the government refused to appear there - it refused to co-operate with the Public Accounts Committee as well. When it came to the Economic Development Committee, it was unanimous. Every single member of this committee agreed that we ought to have the deputy minister here to talk about the economic situation. It was something that was brought forward unanimously and it was the government that refused to co-operate here.

So it's not as if this committee or the Legislature had the Public Accounts Committee as an option, and this committee didn't have the House as an option because the House hadn't met at the time and still hasn't met. So it's not enough to say that you could have examined it elsewhere when, in fact, the government had taken the position that you couldn't examine it there either.

I want to say something, as well, about this whole question of executive privilege that the minister is putting forward. This is an expansion of the notion of Cabinet confidentiality. We accept the idea that discussions around the Cabinet Table are confidential, in principle, although I think in theory this committee has the authority to inquire into those facts, as well, and I stand to be corrected on that.

The fact is that this committee is an extension of Parliament and Parliament is sovereign and Parliament has a right to examine the activities of government and to hold the government accountable. To somehow say that because these discussions may go to the Cabinet at some point or this is data generated by the department for the benefit of Cabinet, the committee can't look at it - this is an extension of Cabinet privilege that has never been accepted in any Westminister-style democracy anywhere. For the government to say that this is a question of the public interest and some other government is guarding the public interest by refusing to disclose information and refusing to co-operate with the committee, is really an abuse of the notion of Parliament itself and who represents the people and who speaks for the public in these kinds of issues.

Parliament is sovereign because it speaks for the people and we are a member of a committee of that House that speaks for the people and we have the right to ask the minister any questions that we want. It's not for the minister to say that it's appropriate for this committee to look at and it's not appropriate for the committee to look at some other issue. We decide what we will look at and how we look at it and who we call before this committee and we expect to get answers when we ask questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, what folly it is to compare budget date 2009 with budget date 2008. It is actually a carryover - it is a carryover of the lack of recognition of what happened in between that period of time. I mean we had a Premier who month after month denied that we were even on the verge of a recession. There was no recognition that we were on the verge of a recession.

Mr. Chairman, last is last, no matter how you cut it and muzzled is muzzled, no matter how you cut it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke.

MR. CLARKE: Thank you very much. You know speaking of fast and loose with language, both Mr. Preyra and Mr. MacKinnon - again, if we want to have a parliamentary debate, I fully welcome that on the floor of the House and, in fact, by the extension. But I will come back - Mr. Preyra basically said damn what the government thinks, damn what anyone thinks, if this committee wants to do it, then we'll do whatever we want. You said that, Mr. Preyra, that this committee has the authority. Well, this committee . . .

MR. PREYRA: I think we have a transcript . . .

MR. CLARKE: Well, check your words. This committee has been given a mandate, although by topic, in fairness, it may be broad in its implications in terms of what you would look at, but there are other committees established. Otherwise, there would be a committee of the whole for all matters, that we would sit around one table.

The reality is that the Legislature has set up committees to deal with certain subject matters deemed to be by the House appropriate from the House to consider that. So to say that - and we will look at Hansard and I'll go back if we want to get into - and again, saying fast and loose with the facts, well, as I offered and was willing, if we want to go question by question and look at what was appropriate for a civil servant to deal with versus that of what a minister is accountable for - and that information and authority, the minister owns. Again, it is about what that minister's obligations and accountability of that House is.

I'm not trying to suggest the minister in any way, shape or form is not accountable, that there is a back door, side door or anything else, but there's a place and forum where that minister is held to account and not thereby through civil servants who do not have the authority to provide comment or opinion on something that is subject to the responsibilities and the obligations of any said minister.

Again, I'd be happy if we want to try, Mr. Chairman, and I think look at where we are, we want to go through and analyze the questions and the context of those questions, then that is an exercise unto itself and I've offered to do that. But again, if we want to sit here - and we are, I mean you know with political banter back and forth - we can do that.

I do not believe, and I do not believe in any way, shape or form - the minister is, and will be, and will continue to be, willing to be accountable for his actions and his decisions as the Minister of Finance. A lot of the information associated with that would come from other areas and other ministries that are part of the Cabinet decision-making process because of the Minister of Finance. Therefore, and as my colleagues would know, other ministers would have to provide that information no differently than if I'm in a portfolio, or as any other minister in a portfolio forms the basis upon the decision that ministers take.

As you know, in the budget process, you would make those and be part of a wider Cabinet decision. Again, that information is not about, should one person be held to those facts; more importantly, that person who doesn't own that information. The Minister of Finance owns those decisions and that's a fact that we have to deal with.

So we want to go back and start looking at did or didn't a civil servant respond to what was the minister's responsibility versus the function of the civil service. We can go through that. I don't believe that. Again, I would say that anybody who was muzzled, it's about what our various forums and functions are and accountability.

Further, if the committee is not satisfied, there is the House, which I do agree is the ultimate authority for such opinions or interpretations.

MR. THERIAULT: I think we're just repeating ourselves here now. I don't think this issue is really about Ms. Harnish, I don't think it's really about the budget. This issue here is about, can ministers direct public servants in what they can say and what they can't say at these public committee meetings? To me, I believe that could be some form of dictatorship. So that's a question that needs to be answered somehow.

I want to quote what our Legislative Counsel is saying, in their opinion, " . . . a public servant may be required to answer a question even if instructed by his or her minister not to do so and that, even when so instructed by the minister, the failure by the public servant to answer the question would constitute a contempt."

We're just repeating ourselves going around the table here. The question is, can the ministers of this province, of this Crown, tell civil servants, public servants, what they can say and what they can't say at these committee meetings? That is the question. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a question you're directing to the solicitor?

MR. THERIAULT: Whoever can answer that, it's directed to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb.

MR. GORDON HEBB: I think I've set it out largely in the opinion. I certainly agree the minister is free to give any direction he or she wants to a public servant. What I would add is that direction is not binding on the committee and the committee certainly has a right to insist upon the answer to any question.

I'd also have to say that it's also open to the minister to direct a public servant to claim what today is called public interest immunity, sometimes in the past called Crown privilege, Cabinet privilege. Certainly it's open to claim that. Again, the committee is not bound by that, but it would be highly unusual for a committee not to respect that.

I guess the difficulty is in deciding what would be covered by that. I think committees do respect that and I think that's been indicated by all the members, that would be claim respected. I guess the difficulty, which I can't provide an answer to, is deciding where that line is. I certainly think it's a difficult line for deciding where the line lies between that confidentiality and those facts. I'm neither criticizing nor defending the deputy minister, but I have some sympathy in that it's a difficult position to be in to try to decide where that line lies if you're not going to answer questions that are revealing confidential advice and which things you can say are facts, that's certainly not an easy thing for the deputy minister. I'm not saying it's impossible and that's for the committee to decide whether the deputy minister accurately or appropriately walked that line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour this issue either. However, it's very interesting. This is a serious matter but it's almost a joke in a way when you look at what the Justice Minister is saying here - that the deputy shouldn't have been called to appear before this committee, that it was not the right department to have before this committee. The fact is that every member of this committee voted for that deputy minister to appear and after she appears and after she is muzzled in here and after she makes inappropriate comments outside of this room, it becomes a situation that she shouldn't have appeared, she shouldn't have been the one who was called forward. I believe we had three members of the government at that particular meeting and all three of them voted for her to appear before this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: Well, I don't want to belabour this either but the minister again is claiming that the ministry and the government owns facts, owns information that the department has. I've never heard that before, that claim to ownership of information and the extension of this public interest immunity or Crown privilege to discussions in other departments that may or may not influence future discussions at Cabinet. That pretty well covers everything the bureaucracy does and it has cast such a wide net over this information that the government claims to own and to hold onto that, we can't accept that. We can't accept that as a statement of the government's ability to stifle debate in the House or in committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke.

MR. CLARKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, to come back with regard to the topics, I do believe this committee again voted to invite the deputy minister. She had declined that and then the committee then voted to subpoena, if I recall it correctly, the deputy minister of which there probably wasn't consensus on but a vote nonetheless, so we're going to be clear on the facts. The other aspect of this - I don't disagree with the member for Digby-Annapolis, Mr. Theriault. Anyone who has issue with a minister, regardless of which minister and what their accountability is to the House, that is a fair question. It is a legitimate one if you're not satisfied but, again, I come back to Mr. Preyra - the reality is policy is set by government and the government is accountable for that policy and the function of whether it's policy, programs or budgetary implementation is subject to the Civil Service - they do a job.

Again, I would come back to Mr. MacKinnon and with the civil servants here, if the questions that you had specifically to the economy and the like - there were no sort of pre-set questions, not that I'm aware of, that you wanted to identify for the minister. Again, I will come back to the point that I make of questions that were budget specific, looking at targets and information that are to Mr. Theriault's point the responsibility, the accountability and the decision directly of the minister and not to be speculative on behalf of a civil servant. So to look for information that the minister is responsible to present, to make that decision on and, therefore, make a recommendation for Cabinet to be ultimately accountable for, is for the minister and thus the government to account for in the Legislature.

The issue here is not about someone coming forward and being asked information but when information goes into the realm of ministerial authority and direct involvement, there is a separation and, as well, with the function of the Economic Development Committee versus the Public Accounts Committee and what types of information a civil servant with a function that is very much dealing with financial management and the function of the Department of Finance, I do agree, if you have an exception with the minister and what you feel he should or shouldn't or can or can't do, well, that's what the House is for.

I don't dispute that ability for the committee, I just don't think in the process it is fair to the Civil Service of Nova Scotia to get them embroiled in matters of policy and decision making that are the accountability of the government of the day. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with some other aspects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Conrad.

MS. VICKI CONRAD: I wasn't part of a lot of the committee meetings but I have read through the letters of correspondence back and forth. I do think there needs to be some clarification for ministers when they're instructing deputy ministers or other public servants who are appearing before any committees, in terms of what really is public interest immunity. I think we're walking a fine line and that has to be defined to be a little bit more clear, because any minister could assert that it's in the public's interest not to have certain information divulged at committees, based on this assertion of public interest immunity.

That's very concerning because each department could have a different understanding of what is in the best interests of the public. I'm thinking that it does need to be more clear and I don't know what that clarity looks like and maybe I'm thinking that maybe I'm going in the wrong direction but that's my sense. I mean obviously the deputy minister was being instructed by the minister, who should be held accountable for instructing her to not answer certain questions, because of public interest perhaps and confidentiality, and did she base her decisions on that? It sounds like she did in her letter and certainly the minister made it clear that he stands behind that.

[9:45 a.m.]

I think I would like some clarity as to what actually is information that should not be shared with committees because it is confidential or because it is not deemed in the best interest of the public and at what discretion do ministers get to use that assertion, and then do we debate that question in another place, in the House, because we're then holding the minister accountable for making that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, before we go any further, we're going around in big long circles here. I think the topic is about the same. One of the topics, my understanding what the meeting was about today - and I found the debate very interesting here - was whether or not we're going to accept the deputy minister's apology or letter of apology to the committee, because that was one issue that we had here.

I would like to start by someone giving me a motion either that we accept it or we don't accept it and have some debate on that and then move forward past that. Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: I wouldn't want to characterize that as an apology. I think it's an explanation from the deputy. I don't think we should politicize the position of deputy ministers to such an extent and I think - Mr. Chairman, I think we should just note the explanation rather than treat it as an apology. I think it would be improper for us to demand an apology from her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chisholm.

HON. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we accept the letter as it is presented.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any more discussion on the letter? Mr. MacKinnon.

MR. MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, I have had no discussion with my colleagues here and I haven't had any coaches whispering in my ear. There are no coaches on this side and I don't know how my other colleagues are going to vote on this.

The deputy minister was in a very difficult situation when she had the direction to be muzzled because that's what, in fact, did take place. So personally - and as I say, I have no idea how my other colleagues are going to vote - I'm going to accept this letter as a statement or as an apology and we're just getting into semantics in relation to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just speaking with the solicitor here and the letter explains, from my opinion and the solicitor's opinion, that indeed there was not an apology for what happened in here by the deputy minister but there was an apology for what transpired outside. So that's the context of the letter as I understand it. Does anyone disagree with that - an explanation for what happened in here?

Would all those in favour of the motion - accepting the letter as presented from the deputy minister - please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The motion is carried.

Let it be shown it was unanimous.

The next issue on the thing we have here is a letter from the Honourable Jamie Muir, Minister of Finance. Really, the issue was with the deputy minister and as the discussion has been here whether she should have or should not have answered the questions, I really don't know what you want to do with this letter from the minister. It's something we can consider, but possibly don't even have to consider because the minister wasn't part of this. It's his opinion in the letter of where this should or shouldn't have been and I look forward to the direction of the committee. Do you want to - I wouldn't say ignore this letter, but just take

it under advisement as for general information or do you want to have some action on the letter? It's up to you. Mr. Preyra.

MR. PREYRA: To the extent that the letter casts aspersions on your own ability as chairman, we have concerns about that. We're satisfied - we think you handled the situation very well and we thank you for helping us to navigate through that issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There's no other discussion? A motion to adjourn would be in order.

MR. MACKINNON: I so move, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 9:50 a.m.]