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. Kim Leadley

Legislative Committees Office

Ms. Sherri Mitchell

Legislative Committees Office

Mr. Jacques Lapointe

Auditor General

Ms. Evangeline Colman-Sadd

Assistant Auditor General

Mr. Gordon Hebb

Chief Legislative Counsel

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2008

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Ms. Maureen MacDonald

MADAM CHAIR: I'd like to call the subcommittee to order, please. The clerk is attempting to find out if Mr. Colwell is on his way. We have several things on our agenda today, the first being topics and witnesses for future meetings. Oh, good morning, Mr. Colwell.

MR. KEITH COLWELL: I apologize for being late.

MADAM CHAIR: Not a problem, we just called the meeting to order.

Before we start looking at the various lists of proposed topics, I had invited Mr. Lapointe, and Evangeline, to come this morning to join us with respect to when we might have an Auditor General's Report or a preliminary report on the Nominee Program. My thinking is that this committee, generally speaking, doesn't meet for a long period into June. In the past, I think we've met to mid-June, perhaps, and then we suspend our meetings for the summer months.

I think that given the interest and the involvement in the nominee issue, we may want to schedule some time in June to at least meet with the Auditor General around the progress being made on their audit.

MR. JACQUES LAPOINTE: Madam Chair, thank you for inviting us on this. I would like to talk about this and I had mentioned to you, as well, that I have a couple of ideas about the sessions that you hold.

On the nominee audit, we are looking right now, I can tell you, to target at some point in June for a report. It is looking like a two-phase report at this point. We're looking to take those aspects of the audit which are ready and report on those in June. We don't exactly have a date yet, but we're working on that. The items that will take longer to do, to wrap those up by the early Fall and have a second-phase report for the rest of the items. There's quite enough for our report in the first part.

I can't accommodate you with a specific date yet, because we've just settled on that it's going to be June. We're just trying to line up a timetable of that and we'll know pretty soon. So at some point in June, yes, we will have something for you and we will let you know as soon as we're more definitive about that, because we need to start clearing it anyway with people.

The other part that I wanted to discuss with the same subject was in terms of the lists, I'm looking for ways right now for our reports to have more impact, to be more effective in terms of instituting changes in the Public Service. To that end, I think it would be extremely helpful if the reports received a little more scrutiny from this committee. What I'm suggesting - and I'd like you to consider as kind of a simple approach for this that could be very effective - when a report is issued for the committee, is to simply select two chapters from that report to have sessions on and when we brief the committee in camera, we could at that point discuss, well, where do we think are the high-risk areas, the more significant areas and the ones that need more attention.

[9:15 a.m.]

At that point you could go from there and say we could advise you as to what we think are, say, the top three in order, and then you can select from there. I think that would be a very effective way to ensure that some of - you could always do more but at least the main chapter, if you think that a half-dozen chapters in the report would receive additional attention and aside from the special reports like the Nominee Program - and I believe the motion passed about doing the annual follow-up - all of those combined would be quite a substantial amount of coverage. I'd just like to put that out and see what the committee thinks about it.

MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. I think that makes great sense. We did look at one chapter, I think we looked at Health Promotion and Protection, but we have certainly been talking about other chapters of that report and today we will - I know that it's here on some of the lists to look at additional chapters, as well as other items.

What I'd like to talk about is how late into June do we want to meet in this committee? Now, looking at the calendar - and I'd like to have this discussion first and then we'll look at topics, because there's no point approving a bunch of things if we're not going to be meeting. So once we know how long we're going to meet, then we will have some sense of how to prioritize what's on the list.

In theory, we could meet next week if we can get witnesses set up that quickly, but that may not be possible. We have nothing scheduled for next week, the 14^th, but just in theory I'm going to put it down as a possible date - May 14^th, then we have May 21^st, and then we have May 28^th. So possibly three more dates in May but maybe not, maybe only two. So two to three possible dates in May.

Then, if we were to go into June, how far into June do we want to go, number one; and number two, do we want to reserve June for when the Auditor General has his preliminary report or a progress report? I would presume that it would be an opportunity to meet with us in camera and go through the work to that point. Then the committee would have the option of deciding whether or not they wanted to meet additionally, to have an open session, or where we would go. That's what I think we should look at.

We're not looking at an awful lot of opportunities, I guess, to meet, except I'd like to hear from you, your thoughts on how far into June. Mr. Colwell and then Mr. Porter.

MR. COLWELL: The only concern I have is that June is graduation time and the third and the fourth week of June are graduations, typically - not always the third week but definitely the fourth week. We don't want to get anything scheduled for that because that is a very hectic time for all of us on the committee, so I think we should probably eliminate those two weeks, just to be sure. Other than that, it's whatever the other committee members would like to do.

MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Porter.

MR. CHUCK PORTER: I agree with Mr. Colwell on June, that would be fine, nothing past the second - the first and second weeks in June are okay. But as for next week, I would only suggest the following. While we're doing extended hours in the House - tonight is a great example - we're going to 9:00 p.m., until at least next week is over and we've gone through and we have a decision on the budget or not, the hours are planned for estimates to be extended, is my understanding. I would say that we should be focusing on that.

We have caucus meetings on Wednesdays, I think all three of us - I'm leaving for one shortly - so timelines are very tight. After that, I would suggest nothing for next week. If we are able to bring something in for the following week after that, it's fine by me and, again, maybe no later than that first week or so into June would be preferable.

MADAM CHAIR: So that means four more. Are you in agreement with that?

MR. PORTER: At the most.

MR. COLWELL: A maximum of four.

MADAM CHAIR: Well, we'll aim for May 21^st, May 28^th, June 4^th and June 11^th.

MR. COLWELL: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: So that pretty well defines what we have in terms of time. Well, that's good. Now let's turn our attention to the lists that have been submitted.

MR. COLWELL: I have a new list here, too, I think - I don't know, they just gave it to me before I went out the door, and I changed the priority list. There are copies for everyone there, I believe.

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, thank you.

MR. COLWELL: Just on the June meetings, again you already stated, I just want to make sure it's clear that the Auditor General has priority on what he's going to bring forward and whatever dates are preference for him, is that understood?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, but I'm wondering if those dates are going to work for you because you said you can't . . .

MR. LAPOINTE: You said the 4^th and 11^th?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, the 4^th and 11^th, those are fairly early in June.

MR. LAPOINTE: We'll target for that.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. I don't know if we had anything left over. We didn't have anything left over from the last subcommittee meeting. I also would like to vary the NDP caucus list and put the issue of Seniors' Pharmacare and the formulary as our - it essentially was our priority to bring forward.

MR. COLWELL: Whose turn is it for the first choice?

MADAM CHAIR: I think actually . . .

MR. PORTER: It must be ours, isn't it? When's the last time we had a witness?

MADAM CHAIR: Well, we've had a number of - I think the last time we had Health Promotion and Protection . . .

MR. PORTER: One of mine got moved . . .

MADAM CHAIR: . . . which was the Auditor General's, which isn't necessarily on anybody's list. We sort of don't look at that, that's something that we do as a matter of routine. Perhaps the first thing we could do is get Mr. Porter to speak to the order. You have Film Nova Scotia on your list and one of the things I'm concerned about is the number of

topics that come forward that really belong in another committee and we end up sending them off to the other committee. So we need to be very clear that this is a topic that belongs at this committee and why we would be looking at it in this committee. This committee tends to look at expenditures that have already happened and we're reflecting on decisions that the government has made in terms of revenue and expenditures. So would you like to speak to Film Nova Scotia?

MR. PORTER: Just based on the film tax credit program is what I was thinking there but we don't necessarily have to do Film Nova Scotia, we could do any of the ones that are on the list there. As far as I'm concerned, we could do any one of them. The order they're written, that order doesn't necessarily mean they're to be brought forward in that order. I'm wide open to suggestion.

MADAM CHAIR: What I have here - the past witnesses that we've approved and we've had before us, we've had the Department of Environment and Labour on the e-waste regulations and air quality monitoring. We had the Department of Justice on Correctional Services. We had Trade Centre Limited and we've had the chapter on Health Promotion and Protection. So one of the things that we do is if there is some consensus across the caucuses on a topic, we tend to go to that topic. There certainly is consensus on the Pharmacare issue and the formulary. My inclination would be to go to that topic as a priority since there is some consensus on it and look at where else we might find some consensus. We also, remember, have another chapter from the Auditor General's Report, as well, as a possibility.

MR. PORTER: I'm okay with the Seniors' Pharmacare, that's fine with me.

MR. COLWELL: I would agree with that too.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, so let's agree on that one, perhaps for May 21^st. This Department of Finance additional appropriations, this really hasn't been scrutinized anywhere and it may be an appropriate opportunity for some legislative body to have a look at that. I would support that, bringing in the Department of Finance, we have not had them for some time.

MR COLWELL: It has been a long time.

MADAM CHAIR: So let's agree to do that. What about doing an additional chapter from the Auditor General's Report? There's a chapter on the Department of Environment and Labour - well, really, it's with respect to the now Department of Environment. There is a chapter on the school bus safety, et cetera, in the South Shore Regional School Board.

MR. COLWELL: I'd agree with that.

MR. PORTER: We did cover a lot of stuff on the school bus piece. Who was before us?

MADAM CHAIR: We did that with the Auditor General but not with the board. We could invite the regional school board to come in and discuss that chapter and their response to the recommendations and their plan to implement the recommendations.

MR. COLWELL: That's great.

MR. PORTER: The South Shore Regional School Board?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes.

MR. PORTER: Okay.

MADAM CHAIR: So this pretty well gives us three topics and in addition to that, we will hope that we can have the in camera with the Auditor General on the Nominee Program - there are four topics. Do you think we should approve anything to have in our back pocket in case we're unable to schedule any of these? I can't imagine that we won't be able to schedule any of these.

MR. PORTER: I think we have some time, let's move forward and see. We can probably do it directly following a regular meeting if we need to for five minutes, perhaps, after we have an idea how the clerk has made out.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, agreed. So then we will recommend these topics to the committee, thank you, excellent.

We have on our agenda some discussion about documents around the Nominee Program. There are two things that I'd like to talk to you about around those documents.

You will remember that we had the Nominee Program in front of the committee, I think it was Wednesday, January 23^rd, and at that time we had asked that members of the committee advise the clerk in advance of any documents that they were going to be using that had been embargoed and that this committee would scrutinize just those documents and make a decision about releasing them. A motion was passed at the meeting that the committee would examine the documents, would make some recommendations back to the committee about releasing those documents. I have that small package of documents here, I can just circulate these.

I'd like you to take note that in these documents there is no identifying information of any nominee. There is no identifying information of any corporate entity outside of Cornwallis, who we already have permission from to release any documents that pertain to them. It seems to me that in these documents there is nothing that falls within the guidelines that we have established in terms of releasing the documents. So if you could have a look at those, for your own satisfaction, I would suggest we recommend back to the full committee

that we release that small package of documents which had been referred to in our January 23^rd meeting with the Public Accounts Committee.

[9:30 a.m.]

MR. PORTER: You just have the one copy?

MADAM CHAIR: Yes.

MR. PORTER: Could we get the clerk to make extra copies, please?

MADAM CHAIR: We've had them in the past, but that's okay, yes. If we can just do that now.

While that's being done, we should move on to a discussion about the documents we haven't received. We have received, as you know, a lot of documents. Most of those documents we've received came to us on discs, but there's also one hard copy, I believe, in every caucus office. We also were given an inventory of documents that weren't released to us. Many of those documents were covered by solicitor/client privilege and some of those documents were claimed Cabinet confidentiality.

At this point, I think the discussion needs to focus on whether or not we are satisfied with the decision of the department in terms of what they've disclosed and what they haven't disclosed and whether we want to do anything further with respect to those documents at this time.

MR. COLWELL: I'd like to go through them one at a time and perhaps have the department here to explain any questions that we have and go through them in a process. I think it's important just to understand what they are. After we went through the other ones, S&J Potatoes and the other outfit, some of that information probably should have been released to us, whether we released it or not to the public is another thing, but I'd like to start that process, as we did before, in camera with our subcommittee.

MR. PORTER: I'm certainly of a different opinion. We've spent a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of taxpaying time on this issue. I think we have the documents we need. We have, I guess, a few more to look through that I have not seen yet, we'll take some time to do that, but I'm not sure how much more time this committee wants to spend on the program in general, this file.

MADAM CHAIR: When would you anticipate doing this, Mr. Colwell, if we were to do it?

MR. COLWELL: We're booked into June and we're not going to meet in the summer, so probably early Fall. Our office is still going through the documentation we have. With the House in session, we're not making much progress with it.

MADAM CHAIR: What I would suggest we do then is that we defer a final decision on this until the Fall and that will give us an opportunity to have the Auditor General - at least the preliminary, and who knows if there'll be a final. We'll come back to this, we'll just defer it and we will come back to it, making a final decision.

MR. COLWELL: At that point we may change our minds.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, excellent. Let's just move on to the final item of business while we're waiting for those documents. We've received a letter from the Public Accounts vice-chair in the Yukon with respect to the conference of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees.

Now I'm not really clear here on what the protocol is or what the practice is. I know some aspects of it. Mr. Colwell, you probably know more than I do or maybe even Mr. Porter on this. It's my thinking that in the past, the chair and the vice-chair and the clerk attend this conference, as well as the Auditor General. I think last year we had gotten agreement from the Speaker to have a member of the Third Party attend as well. I don't know if that's automatic - I guess my question is, is it automatic that we send a person from each caucus to this committee?

MR. COLWELL: Yes, that's normally how it works.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, thank you. So we don't need to ask for permission from the Speaker, okay. So you have the information.

I don't think at this stage we really need to do much. If you are going to proceed, there will be registration information coming and we should just let the clerk know of your intention, if you're going, so that they will help facilitate the arrangements. Is that agreed?

MR. COLWELL: Agreed, I plan to attend.

MADAM CHAIR: So all we need do now is wait for those documents and it should be fairly quick that we'll get you out of here. Is there any other business that people have while we're here?

Now I just want to say that I'm not positive but I believe this document here, the memorandum to Cabinet, has already been tabled. If you remember, Mr. Steele had a document that had come . . .

MR. COLWELL: From somewhere.

MADAM CHAIR: I believe that's it. So do you want us to walk through those one at a time and we'll just - so that's the first document, which I believe was already tabled. The next document is a letter from Alison Scott to Mr. Balser and I see nothing in this letter that would meet our test of withholding this document.

MR. COLWELL: I would agree with that.

MADAM CHAIR: The next document is only the first page of a letter and as you can see, identifying information has been removed from that page. Again, I don't see the test we have set that we not disclose private, personal information of the nominees or any of the businesses. The other documents are an exchange of e-mails between the provincial officials and one of the federal officials with respect to this program, the Nominee Program.

MR. PORTER: Just looking through the correspondence of e-mails there, we're saying these have not been released, correct?

MADAM CHAIR: That's right.

MR. PORTER: But we've asked questions, if I recall, back when they were before us in committee to all of these points, pretty much what I've just very quickly read through, they have . . .

MADAM CHAIR: Yes, that's right.

MR. COLWELL: I don't see any problem with any of these.

MADAM CHAIR: So we will then ask the full committee to approve the recommendations of the subcommittee that we release these documents.

So at this stage we stand adjourned. Thank you.

[The subcommittee adjourned at 9:41 a.m.]