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. Mora Stevens

Legislative Committee Clerk

Mr. Jacques R. Lapointe

Auditor General of Nova Scotia

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2006

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

MADAM CHAIR: Good morning. I'll call the subcommittee to order. We have three items of business. I think we'll start first with the OTANS item. This was sent back to the subcommittee for some further discussion and clarification. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the transcript from Hansard, from last week. More or less, the issue was raised that, normally, the Public Accounts Committee doesn't have an industry group come in front of us independently. Generally speaking, we bring in a government department. We were thinking back to times when we might have had a group. We've had Doctors Nova Scotia in, but they came in with the Department of Health.

We just want to get some further clarification and direction on how we can proceed with having an opportunity to speak with OTANS, but also do it in a way that we don't establish a precedent that industry groups would be coming in front of the committee. We wouldn't get a chance to question government departments, which really is our mandate.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: It's simple. We just call the Department of Energy - that's what we should do, we should do that anyway - as one of the witnesses there. I think the two of them together should really come anyway. I think we just call the Department of Energy, with an emphasis on the offshore and onshore oil exploration.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: I thought that was probably what would have taken place anyway, along with someone from a government department. They wouldn't be here on their own.

MR. COLWELL: No.

MR. PORTER: I didn't think that was your intent, but maybe I misunderstood that.

MR. COLWELL: No. We'll just call the Department of Energy.

MADAM CHAIR: We will recommend that to the full committee, that this is what was intended. Then we'll proceed.

The next item is the review of the letter of opinion from the Chief of Legislative Counsel. I'm not sure how you want to proceed with this. We can actually have a discussion of the content of the letter, but I was thinking more that maybe we should just put it on an agenda for the full committee. I want to hear from you, how you want to proceed with this particular item.

MR. PORTER: I would like to move that we delay this discussion for the next, at least, four weeks. The reason I say that is myself, mostly, but all three members of our caucus are not only new members to this committee, we're new members, and we have a lot of work to do on this particular item. If we are going to bring it back, I think that we need some time to sit down with former members who may have sat around this committee, members of our caucus actually, and have some discussion as to what we want to proceed with. I would move that we put this aside for at least four weeks.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: I have some concerns with that, but knowing how complex this is, and the Chair knows as well how complex this is, and the tremendous amount of information we provided, I wouldn't have a problem with delaying it for four weeks and bringing it back. It is a tremendous amount of information. This is an issue we have to address in the future, but I wouldn't want our members, any of the members on the committee, not to have the opportunity to properly come forward and have the opportunity to read all the information. I know it took me days and days to go through it all.

MR. PORTER: I only bring it forward, basically - everyone knows how busy our schedules are right now with the number of meetings and so on. There's a lot of material there, that one does have to go through. It's one thing to read it, but there are a lot of questions, of course, for our own caucus and our members of this committee coming out of that. We want to have the time to really spend some time on it and detail some information. We would like that.

MADAM CHAIR: I just want to note on the record that I don't believe there was an intent to revisit the substance of all of the S & J Potato and Magic Valley materials, that the focus was solely around the issuing of warrants to receive disclosure and those

warrants were not complied with. That was the advice that was sought from Legislative Counsel - how to proceed with respect to the failure of the government to comply with the warrants, given that there was an election intervening in that process. So that's the first thing.

I don't know that there is a need to read all of the materials that were received. That is the first thing. The second thing I would say is that with respect to the PC caucus, the member raises a good point around continuity and not having any members of your caucus now on the committee who were here at that time. Two of the members who were here at that time are no longer members of the House, that would be Mr. DeWolfe and Mr. Hines so that would leave Mr. Parent as the sole person to consult with. I just bring that for your information, really.

MR. PORTER: That is kind of why I bring it up as well, not to interrupt you, but knowing the minister's schedule, you can appreciate the amount of time we have to go through that information with him if we do have questions.

MADAM CHAIR: So it is the wish of the subcommittee then to recommend back to the Public Accounts Committee that we delay the discussion of this matter for four weeks. Is that right? That's right.

Now I have a question then about what we will do in four weeks time because we could also - I mean one of the things that we have to decide is if we want to sit down with Mr. Hebb and have him answer any questions coming out of this correspondence. The reason I raise this is, we've had Mr. Hebb sort of scheduled at least once and maybe sort of on notice that he might have to come at one other meeting, so I would like to be able to give him some sense of when we would want him to come in front of us, or are we not going to go down that road? I guess that's what I need to know.

MR. COLWELL: Well, I'll answer that with a question to Mr. Porter, if I could. Again, this is a pretty complex issue, as we all know, and the fact that both Madam Chair and myself sat through the whole thing and all the transcripts and all the stuff that was done in the Legislature and everything, at the end of four weeks do you think you'll have enough information to move forward at that point? Maybe this is not even a question that you can answer at this point because it is so complex.

MR. PORTER: Yes, there's a great deal of work there, there's no doubt about that. I don't have the answer to that right now, of course, because I don't know what kind of time it is going to take us but I can appreciate the Chair's position with Mr. Hebb. I think that he is probably aware at some point, and maybe we've given him notice that he is on some notice. I don't know how - I want to use the word important but how important is that in his scheduling, or how easy, I guess, is maybe the question to get him here. How much notice does he need? A week? Two weeks? Well, we meet every week.

If we do come to that, it shouldn't be a great deal of notice for Mr. Hebb to come back - pretty open?

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, so we will recommend that this item be delayed for four weeks, which means that it will be brought forward in week five. I think that is what I'm trying to get some clarification around. What happens at the end of four weeks? Do we have another discussion?

MR. PORTER: I think that we should be meeting in four weeks in subcommittee, to see if we're ready to move forward and we'll make a decision at that time. Hopefully that month, four weeks, is going to give us enough time in between House hours. We may have opportunity to have some discussion and so on around this because we'll be doing a great deal of investigation and reading and so on and I know we'll have questions. So I would like us to review that again.

MADAM CHAIR: That's the clarification I'm seeking. Okay, so it will be delayed for four weeks and the subcommittee will then put it on an agenda for a subcommittee meeting and it will be discussed at that time. Okay? Good. And recommendations will - I mean, this letter has been distributed to all members of the committee, and I think we have to give them some clear idea of what our plans are. Okay.

Now, there is also the tentative schedule review. I believe that is in front of us, attached to the agenda.

MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Clerk): I basically sent out, yesterday, to the committee, the November schedule since it has been set but there was a question for the subcommittee - if you turn to the next page - if the committee wanted to meet in December. I had been chatting with the Auditor General, and he traditionally has his December report. It's a possibility that it might be ready for December 13^th. I left those dates open but it's the will of the committee. Usually around this time, I ask when they would like to finish meeting dates in December and then start up again in January.

[9:15 a.m.]

MR. COLWELL: If I may, Madam Chair, I think it would be important to - if the Auditor General's Report is ready on the 13^th - tentatively to book a meeting for that date.

MADAM CHAIR: I would agree.

MR. COLWELL: If he's not ready, we can cancel it. You'll know, probably, a week or two in advance if you're ready?

MR. JACQUES LAPOINTE: Oh, yes.

MR. COLWELL: So we could cancel it, like, a week or two in advance. But other than that, unless the Auditor General's Report is coming, I would think that we shouldn't have any meetings in December.

MADAM CHAIR: Yes. Mr. Porter?

MR. PORTER: I would agree with that, yes.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, I agree.

MR. PORTER: That December 13^th - just a question of clarification - that would be an in camera session?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, it would be. Any other business?

MS. STEVENS: Just to let you know, Heather Foley Melvin's documents have arrived this morning. They were due and they arrived early, so they will be distributed in the package.

MR. COLWELL: Today?

MS. STEVENS: Yes, today. I'm going to photocopy them and put them in.

MR. COLWELL: Great.

MADAM CHAIR: Thanks very much. We stand adjourned.

[The committee adjourned at 9:16 a.m.]