The Chair will call a short break and we will come back to review Bill 9.

-- Break

I would like to call committee of the whole back to order. We are reviewing Bill 9. Mr. Minister, would you like to bring in witnesses? Mr. Handley.

Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please escort the witnesses in? Mr. Minister, for the record, would you please introduce your witnesses?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me are Liz Snider, secretary to Cabinet and Lew Voytilla, secretary to the Financial Management Board.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. We are on page 6, Executive, operations expenditures, special warrants, Cabinet Secretariat, $776,000. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some questions for the Minister. He indicated the last time we sat down to review this supp that he felt he was in conflict and declared so in Cabinet when it came to matters related to the conflict process, so he removed himself from Cabinet discussions. Presumably, he then removed himself from acting in certain duties as the Minister for the public service, and the Premier then took over those specific duties.

I am wondering if Mr. Handley can indicate why he felt that, after the point in which the committee report was tabled in the House, he was still in conflict? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question correctly, I felt I was still in conflict on any matter that dealt with the decision on the settlement with the two individuals concerned. I kept myself away from that process, even though the committee had already completed its report. I was in conflict because I was one of the signatories for the report and the recommendations in it and really could not be involved in any matters related there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. So because of the Minister's involvement in the committee that produced the report on the conflict process, the Minister felt that he was in conflict and therefore could not be a signatory to these termination contracts. If indeed he was at conflict in these matters, I am wondering if, on January 21st, I believe that is the date that FMB reviewed this supp, I am wondering if he declared conflict on that day, or did he chair the meeting that reviewed this supp and finally, subsequently voted on and approved this coming forward to the House?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I did chair the meeting on January 21st. I was no longer in conflict, because the money in question or the arrangements had already been made. That was not the issue anymore. The issue that was looked at on January 21st was whether the Department of the Executive had the money in their appropriation to be able to cover this, or whether it was necessary to include it in the supp. The decisions had already been made, except there was a supp required, and that certainly was not in conflict. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. I would agree and acknowledge that the Minister did the right thing in removing himself from Cabinet discussions. I do believe he was in conflict in these matters. I guess my question is about who assumed the role for the Minister of the public service. It was the Premier who in fact decided himself that he would take over the role as the Minister of the public service. We know there was no official process for doing this, so in fact, Cabinet was not made aware that this was going on, I believe. He was a witness in the conflict process. He gave testimony at this conflict process. Furthermore, he was named in the conflict report, specifically in one of the recommendations, recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Premier take immediate action to regain the confidence of the public and all Members in the integrity of government and the standards of all persons within government. This action is essential in order that the Premier retain the confidence of the House.

He was a witness in the process, gave testimony, was named in a recommendation in the report, yet it was he who took the role of the Minister for the public service in order to sign the termination contract of one of the people who was let go, did not sign the other one, but at least signed one of them. I am wondering, in this Minister's view, does that not seem to be a conflict?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, no, I do not think so. First of all, the conflict committee's report made recommendations to the Premier of actions he should take in order to regain confidence, so that is what he was doing. As we heard yesterday, it was Ms. Snider who took the responsibility on the negotiations. He did not appear to have involved himself in that either, so I do not think there was, from his perspective, that there was a conflict. He was doing what the committee had asked him to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One point in the Premier's testimony in the conflict process, he said "If there are issues considering conduct, that is for the Board of Management, or perhaps myself as Premier, to deal with." Certainly, obviously it was clear to everybody that the Board of Management could not be involved in dealing with conduct issues of senior staff and as Premier, he had a role to play in restoring the public confidence, but I do not know, in my mind, that should have extended to the Minister for the public service.

We are all representatives of this government. I think it leaves the perception that there is a possibility that people may perceive he was also in conflict. I do not understand why another Member who was clearly not even close to the process at all, one of the other very able Cabinet Ministers was not asked, the Deputy Premier, for instance, Mr. Antoine, was not asked to assume the role of the Minister for the public service. I think that would have been very clear to the public that there was some distance there and I think it would have been very reassuring.

It is strange to me that was not undertaken. I think had it been, it would have been deemed to be appropriate. Would the Minister please respond to why he feels another Minister who was totally detached and uninvolved from this process was not appointed to do this job?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier was doing what the committee had asked him to do. I do not believe he was in conflict. As well, it is common practice for the manager, the supervisor, to be involved in the discipline and termination of an employee who works for him. That happens all the time in government. While there may have been other ways of doing it or other perspectives on it, I do not think the Premier was at all in conflict in this sense here. Thank you.