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. Gordon Hebb, QC

Chief Legislative Counsel

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2007

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

8:30 A.M.

CHAIR

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

MADAM CHAIR: I'd like to call the meeting of the Subcommittee on Public Accounts to order, please. We have an agenda that contains one item - it's the potential witnesses for further subcommittee meetings. We've had topics - you have before you topics that have been submitted from the various caucuses. The floor is now open for discussion of the topics in front of us.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: This is our motion regarding Ms. Heather Foley Melvin, is it?

MADAM CHAIR: No, actually we were dealing with the potential witnesses for the committee.

MR. COLWELL: Sorry about that, I was reading something when you were talking. I apologize for that.

MADAM CHAIR: That's okay.

MR. COLWELL: There's a list here I would like to circulate, that we didn't have an opportunity to circulate before.

MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Clerk): That's on the list.

MR. COLWELL: Okay. So you already have our list here. Again, are we going to go through the same process we did before to see what's common with the different caucuses, and then sort of put those as a priority?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes. I know that the Corpus Sanchez audit was on the NDP list from the Fall, but my understanding is that this has not been scheduled because the report has not been completed. Is that correct?

MS. STEVENS: The report has been submitted to the government, but it has not been made public yet. The deputy is willing to come in to speak on the process, but she couldn't speak on the report itself until it becomes public.

MR. COLWELL: As we decided before, I think it's probably wise to hold that off until we have the report.

MADAM CHAIR: Until we have something to deal with.

MR. COLWELL: Yes, I think it's a very important topic, but not until we know the whole thing.

If I could make a suggestion. Our caucus would like to see Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations come in on the administration of petroleum products pricing. There seems to be a big range of pricing differences between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be our number one priority, and hopefully the committee would see it possible for us to move forward on that quickly.

MADAM CHAIR: I have no difficulty with that. We have just one item from the PC caucus and it would seem to make sense to have that scheduled as well, given there are some developments in this regard. We're in a pre-budget period where we're trying to determine what the fiscal state actually is.

The items on the NDP caucus list are there essentially in the priority in which we would like to see issues called. We're very interested in examining the leasing arrangements on vehicles for members of the Executive Council in terms of whether or not we're getting value for dollar. It's our expectation that calling the witnesses from OED and the fleet management services with the Department of Transportation and Public Works may help us in this regard. This is an item that we would like to see come before us as soon as possible.

MR. COLWELL: I have no argument with that at all. I think it's a very good one to put on there. Might it also be possible to get somebody from outside, maybe an accountant or someone who's very familiar with the costing of vehicles? There has been some discussion around whether a leased vehicle or mileage is cheaper, more cost effective for the people of the province to pay for. If we could get somebody who has that expertise, because for a lot of people I believe it's a pretty simple answer, after a certain number of kilometres it's more cost effective to lease a vehicle than it is to pay mileage.

Maybe not even a witness, but somebody who has knowledge of this, maybe a CA firm or something, that we could get the information from, just to know where we stand with that. I think that would shed a different light on this, rather than just staff talking about it, alone.

MADAM CHAIR: We don't have a budget to provide any financial compensation to witnesses from the private sector. I think that's an important thing to recognize, that it's very difficult - who would you ask, number one; what would you offer them, would you expect people to come here on a voluntary basis; on what basis would you choose someone to come? I'm not really wanting to get myself into that role, where I would go through the phone book and pick out - do you know what I'm saying? It's not normally the practice.

What I think we need to do, and it's a great suggestion, is that the various caucuses, with their research capacity, should feel that it's within their realm to seek information, expert opinion. If you want to bring someone here who can comment, inform the research staff who can inform the questioners, then that would be fine. But I don't really think it would be appropriate, to be honest with you.

MR. COLWELL: The only concern I have with that, again, we continually ask staff these questions, and they have their pat answers that they work with and nothing has really changed. On this particular issue, the industrial standards that are applied to businesses, and in this case this is very similar to a business operation, where you have a vehicle or you pay mileage. I think that information would be very relevant. I believe there's a standard that's used in industry, that over a certain number of kilometres it's more cost effective to lease a vehicle than it is to pay mileage. That's the only information I'm looking for. There has to be someone - maybe the Auditor General has a friend, or someone in his department has, who can give us that information. I think that would be very useful. I think it would add to this discussion.

MADAM CHAIR: I don't disagree with you, in terms of the usefulness of the information, but I think it would be up to the members of the committee through their Party offices to seek that information, so that they have that, rather than attempting to bring people in front of the committee who are not - I mean, the role of the committee is to examine the way government spends money, and to do that through speaking with the various departments and senior staff. I'm reluctant to set any kind of precedent that we're going to start bringing in people from outside the Public Service, in front of this committee. It's not where we want to go, I think.

MR. COLWELL: I'm not disagreeing with you on this, but perhaps if I could find somebody who would give us this information, I can provide a document to that effect that we can use. As long as the committee will accept that, that's fine.

MADAM CHAIR: Certainly, thank you. Can we then give some direction to the clerk to schedule those three matters, and keep in mind that the Corpus Sanchez audit is still out there, and no doubt will become available, hopefully fairly soon.

Perhaps we can go, then, to other items on the list. I'm not sure that we have to conclude all of these items for scheduling today. We can certainly have more subcommittee meetings and come back and, depending on whether the clerk is able to line these items up or not, we may need to choose additional matters from the list. Is that agreeable?

So today, to the Public Accounts Committee, we will recommend that Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, with respect to petroleum pricing come; the Department of Finance on the fiscal imbalance; and the office of OED, Procurement Division and the Department of Transportation and Public Works Fleet Management Services, that these three topics be scheduled and we'll see what the full committee says about that. Mr. Porter.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: I wonder, Madam Chairman, if the Liberal caucus also has the Department of Transportation and Public Works, would it be possible to bring maybe an extra member, a witness in with that team to answer some of the questions, or would that not allow enough time?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I don't think it will allow enough time. We like to deal with one topic at a time and in the cases where we've tried to deal with several topics, we've generally not had a satisfactory meeting because the time is just not long enough. Two hours goes pretty fast sometimes.

Okay, so any other business? Mr. Colwell, I understand you have a motion.

MR. COLWELL: Oh, I want some more discussion on this Heather Foley Melvin issue that we've been talking about and I just want to hear the committee's ideas on this before I move a motion.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Porter.

MR. PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Certainly I would, with the committee's indulgence, like to propose another motion with regard to Ms. Heather Foley Melvin, if I would be permitted to do so.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The floor is yours.

MR. PORTER: I move that Ms. Heather Foley Melvin be asked to return to this committee to clarify her answers to two questions, one regarding her meeting with the

Premier and one regarding her private sector salary. Given the proprietary nature of her private sector work, the question regarding her previous salary will be dealt with in camera. Having already made a lengthy appearance before this committee, Ms. Foley Melvin will not take questions and her appearance will be the last time the committee hears from Ms. Foley Melvin on this particular matter. I can submit that actually in writing, if you would like.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I think the clerk probably would like that. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: Maybe just a couple of questions on that motion because the real gist of this whole thing is to get these questions answered, that's what Mr. Steele had in his mind, I'm sure, when he wrote this and that was the intent of this.

Madam Chairman, if we're not satisfied with the answers we get from Ms. Melvin and we don't move Mr. Steele's motion today, can we bring that back again to the subcommittee? I just want to make sure that Ms. Melvin answers the questions.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Yes. I think that this matter can be returned to the subcommittee. First of all let me say that I wasn't clear that the subcommittee would be dealing with it today. The motion was made in front of the full Public Accounts Committee. The discussion that occurred last week occurred in front of the full Public Accounts Committee. There was never a motion made to return it to the subcommittee. However, that doesn't mean that we can't have this discussion here today. Any other business can be brought forward by members of the subcommittee. So the motion, for example, that was just made is fully in order, although it wasn't necessarily on our agenda.

The subcommittee does not have the power to determine the agenda of the Public Accounts Committee. We just meet for administrative reasons and we make recommendations to the full committee, as you know, and the full committee will vote on our recommendations and will accept them, will reject them or will alter them in some way.

[8:45 a.m.]

So if what you're asking is, if this motion fails, is that the end of the matter?

MR. COLWELL: No, that's not quite what I asked. If, indeed, as Mr. Porter has suggested that Ms. Melvin comes and answer the questions, that has been the issue here all along, if she does come and answer these questions, well, the issue is dead, it's over with as far as I'm concerned. But if she comes and shows any lack of willingness to

answer these questions, can we then bring back Mr. Steele's motion, either to the subcommittee or to the full committee, and bring that forward?

I'm hopeful, you know, if indeed this is the case, that we wouldn't have to do that. I just don't want to see this die if indeed she comes back and says, look, I can't answer this, I can't answer that, and I can't answer that again, because the idea of this, as we've seen with Economic Development, we've seen that with ourselves and it's a trend that is not acceptable for this committee. But if she's willing to come forward, I have no objection anytime anyone wants to come voluntarily to the committee and clarify things, or add additional information, I think that's very positive, but I just don't want one to kill the other.

MADAM CHAIR: I don't think so, but let's take it one step at a time. I think that this committee has the power, after witnesses attend, to reflect on what it is we heard and where it is we want to go next. So certainly I would say that in the event that a witness came forward again and didn't provide the information, there would be the opportunity for members to place that back on the agenda to have a full discussion.

So we have a motion on the floor. Now, I want to speak to the motion because a piece of the motion is about having the witness in camera. On the one hand, I have no difficulty with the idea that the Public Accounts Committee go into an in camera session for a period, we've done that in an attempt to get information. But the grounds on which we went into an in camera session in the past that I can recall was with regard to Mr. Fage and Cabinet confidentiality. So I have some question about why the motion has this particular feature in it, that the questioning around Ms. Foley Melvin's private sector salary be only heard by the members in camera.

MR. PORTER: Madam Chair, I assumed that question may arise and I guess my only comment to it - I have a couple of comments on it. First, maybe one to Mr. Colwell's point. The intent of the motion is to bring Ms. Heather Foley Melvin back to, in fact, answer the question and to move forward and move on in hopes that the answer will be given. Whether or not we like the answer, I don't think is relevant in this case. It was no different than any other witness in my opinion. Answers are given here all the time that we, as members, may agree or disagree with, but the answers are provided and I'm not suggesting that she won't provide the answer. I'm assuming that she will. I'm hopeful that she will provide the answer.

To the in camera point, I guess I look at it, nobody asked for my salary to be submitted, that was not the public's business perhaps, and nobody asked for any other members' salary in their previous employment. So the relevancy there was my question. I don't see where it is relevant to the public what she made in the past. She is, from my understanding, perhaps willing to provide that but in an in camera session, and that

seemed reasonable at the time. I will stand by that in the motion at least at this point in time.

I believe, you know, if somebody wants to see my salary, they can ask and I think that should be up to me whether I wish to provide that from the private sector, in a previous life. If all members of this committee wish to put their previous private sector salaries on the table, perhaps she may be interested to do that, but I don't know and I'm not asking anyone on this committee to do that, I just use that as an example. So that would be my reasoning for in camera.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell, do you have any point you want to make on this?

MR. COLWELL: Now, if I recall from the discussion that when she was asked about salary, there was something about a non-disclosure agreement, or insinuated a non-disclosure agreement, or confidentiality, or something she had with her former employer. If that's true - and I'm just going from what I can remember of the discussion - I can't see any problem with going in camera for just that information and to find that out, providing she's willing to supply that to us at that time and not come back with all kinds of non-answers.

I think it's relevant in this case, because if she was making substantially less in the private industry than she is now, then it brings into question whether or not that was an appropriate salary to be paid for the position she's in, or if she's qualified to do that particular job. I think it's very relevant in this case. It may turn out she was actually being paid more than the position now in place and that sheds a whole different light on things. It doesn't say she's qualified for the job, but it would say she's in the same salary range.

I think it's very relevant information and if she's willing to provide that in camera, I have no problem with that and our caucus would have no problem with that.

MADAM CHAIR: I would say that it would be my preference that we would deal with that item in the public domain, just as everything else, simply because this is about value for dollar, and the public's right to know whether they are getting fair value for dollar in their senior civil servants. Particularly in this case where there are many, many questions about the appointment, about whether the person is qualified to do the job, whether the salary is appropriate, how it was negotiated, all of those kinds of things.

However, I understand on the other hand why people think perhaps this is personal, but Heather Foley Melvin is not a private citizen anymore and hasn't been since she was the chief of staff in the Premier's office and ended up in a very well paid position without a competition, at the same salary.

I will support the motion, but with grave reservations that we do that part in camera. I believe the public does have a right to know what her salary was in the private sector. I don't see that as being something that just members of the committee should hold privately.

MR. COLWELL: I tend to agree with you, but maybe we could leave it like this and maybe with Mr. Porter's concurrence, if she can provide some kind of a document from her former employer that they have an objection to this, rather than her having an objection. If she has an objection, that's one thing. But, if her former employer has some kind of an objection in writing or some kind of a non-disclosure agreement that she can show our committee, then I would think in camera would be appropriate. If not, I think it should be made public.

MADAM CHAIR: I can accept that. I mean, it is about whether her employer has some objections, not whether she has objections.

MR. COLWELL: Exactly.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Porter, would you agree with that?

MR. CHUCK PORTER: Certainly we can see if that's - if she's willing to provide that, I guess.

The other thing I do want to come back to, you made a comment about the quality of person and the qualifications of a person. There are often times when people are very well qualified that perhaps they are not paid what they feel is an adequate salary. In this case, I do not see the relevance of her past life and the job she does today. I know there's a qualification issue that you have there, but, again, any one of us, as members of this House could be questioned with regard to qualifications as well, perhaps, on the salary that we're paid.

I don't see a big difference there. We're all working for the people. However, I'll stand by what I said earlier, but I think that's fine, perhaps we should request if there's a document out there, it be provided.

MADAM CHAIR: We have a motion on the floor. It contains that clause around going in camera. Can the motion be altered to reflect the conversation we've just had so that . . .

MR. COLWELL: That would be acceptable. I'd like to amend the motion that Ms. Foley Melvin be asked to testify in camera if she can provide a letter or some kind of a disclosure document from her former employer indicating it would cause them some

kind of distress or whatever the case may be. Otherwise, her testimony on her previous salary should be in the public domain.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, further discussion? We'll vote on the amendment. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.

The amendment is carried.

Now we'll vote on the main motion. Any further discussion on the main motion?

Would all those in favour of the main motion please say Aye.

The motion is carried.

Is there any other business for the subcommittee? Hearing none, the subcommittee will adjourn and we will report to the Public Accounts Committee at the end of the meeting with the Gaming Corporation. Mr. Colwell.

MR. COLWELL: One thing we didn't talk about, maybe Mr. Porter can shed some light on this, when is she willing to come or when shall we bring her in to the committee? That's an issue, too.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Colwell, I'll deal with that, as the Chair of the Committee. I sort of think it is inappropriate to have a member of a caucus deal with a witness and we'll deal with the witness in the usual fashion. So I will communicate with her, as the Chair of the Committee, and we will provide her with a copy of the motion and we will see when she is available. Thank you.

We are adjourned for three minutes.

[The committee adjourned at 8:57 a.m.]