MR. CHAIRMAN: Welcome to the meeting. I know everyone has things to do, so we will go ahead. We want to welcome Cecil Clarke, MLA for Cape Breton North who is sitting in for Bill Dooks. Welcome to you, Cecil. The rest are members who are normally on the committee. We do have two items of correspondence. The first one I want to deal with is from the Minister of Environment and Labour, the Honourable David Morse. You remember that he had written a letter about occupational health and safety in response and we didn't really feel that gave us enough background, so we asked for another letter that would expand a little bit more on the concerns that we raised. So this is the letter that you have received and if there are any comments or questions about it, I will accept them now. If not, we will just accept it as received. I thank David for his willingness to do that.
The next letter in front of you is from the Deputy Minister of the Department of Environment and Labour. There is a name on our list that has been withdrawn and the explanation as to why it is withdrawn is there, the appointment of a Chairman to the Workers' Compensation Board. We will start with Graham Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Thank you. This letter is worthy of some considerable discussion, I think, because there is political skulduggery going on here of the highest order. Maybe the first issue that I want to raise is the fact that I don't understand why it is that we would be expected to remove something from our agenda because a deputy minister asked us to. Our book has a recommendation of this person from the minister. His signature appears twice in our book. It is also signed by the Clerk of the Executive Council who is recording a recommendation of the Executive Council.
Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate to remove something from an agenda just because a deputy minister asked us to. If it is going to be removed from the agenda, I think this committee deserves to have that request made by the two people who have put the name forward, or at least the two people whose names are in our book, namely the Clerk of the Executive Council and the minister. I don't think we should accept this item being withdrawn from the agenda until we hear from them. That is the first of several points I would like to make this morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just on that point, my understanding is this is fairly typical procedure that either the minister or the deputy minister writes a letter indicating that the name has been withdrawn and a brief description why. So that has been our normal procedure.
MR. STEELE: Then I would say that it is time that our procedure changed. If necessary, I would make a motion that the item not be removed from the agenda. No, actually, do you know what? I don't think I have to move a negative. If somebody wants to move that it be removed from the agenda, well let them move it and defend it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so you are not making a motion. Michel Samson.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Well, first of all, I guess from a procedure standpoint, in cases like this, I guess I can say we were advised that this would probably be happening. We did receive information that Mr. [Innis] Christie was not pleased with the appointment that was being offered. As a result of Bill No. 20, if I am not mistaken, the appointment of the chairman would have only been for a six month period.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, a nine month period.
MR. SAMSON: A nine month period and that was one of his objections. I can clearly see why - a nine month position as chairman of such an important board. In this case, fortunately, Mr. [Innis] Christie with his years of experience, I am sure that he could have quickly adapted back to that position, but for any other candidates, it is clearly foolish to expect anyone to be able to sit in that position for nine months. As a term of procedure, I guess in cases like this, one would hope - I understand Mr. Steele would like to see from the deputy and the minister, I would like to see from the candidate. I guess in this case we are to assume that the deputy minister is speaking on behalf of Mr. [Innis] Christie here, although we do not have anything from Mr. [Innis] Christie indicating that he would like to have his name removed.
At the end of the day, what we have here, really - and I had the privilege of sitting in as a student with Mr. [Innis] Christie in labour law at Dalhousie Law School - today is a sad day for labour in this province, that we are losing someone of the quality of Mr. [Innis] Christie to be serving as chairman on this board. Mr. [Innis] Christie's experience, both as
a professor and having worked in arbitrations, have shown him to be an extremely fair, very intelligent, and very knowledgeable man on labour issues.
I think this government is going down a dangerous road by making changes to the appointments. Nine months is clearly an unacceptable amount of time. We have longer appointments for people sitting on boards which do not even come close to having the level of importance or the complexity that the Workers' Compensation Board has.
I think this is a wake-up call for the government. The fact that we are still sitting, one would hope that they would be willing to make the necessary changes to Bill No. 20 to make sure that the chair position is for a longer period of time. I would suggest no less than a one year to possibly even a two year appointment for such an important position. When one looks at someone like Mr. [Innis] Christie, I certainly, and I know our caucus, have absolutely no problems with his qualifications or his abilities and it is our position that today the Tory Government should be ashamed for having lost someone of the quality of Innis Christie to serve the people and labour in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I said nine months, but it is really seven months, so I should correct myself. Sorry about that. Yes, was there . . .
MR. STEELE: Unless there is somebody else who would like to speak first. Mr. Chairman, I raised my first objection and the member for Richmond has raised others that I want to echo. I am not sure if the members on the government side realize what is going on here, what they are doing and I won't give them the whole history of the WCB; I am sure they will thank me for that. I just want to let them know, briefly, if I could, why what is going on here, which I will get to in a minute, is so very objectionable and particularly in the context of the WCB.
The WCB was historically a highly politicized organization which reached its depths under the Buchanan Government where the board of directors consisted of two people: John Buchanan's former campaign manager and a former Tory MLA. Whatever virtues those gentlemen may have had, running a $100 million a year insurance company wasn't one of them.
The WCB was just a dreadful organization in every respect: financially, from a human resources point of view and in the way it managed the injured workers' claims. It really reached crisis in 1990 when the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled that the way they had been calculating benefits for decades was wrong, was just legally incorrect. The board was absolutely paralyzed by that decision because they were told that what they were doing was wrong, but they didn't have the resources or the ability to do what was right. Eventually, the Cameron Government, to its credit, appointed a new board of directors which started to pull the board out.
Let's make no mistake about it. The reason the board reached the depths that it did was because the wrong people were in place running the show over there. When Dr. Robert Elgie was appointed in 1992, that started the long climb out of that hole. Then the Liberal Government, when Dr. Elgie's time came to leave - because he was from Ontario and went back to Ontario - had the good sense to appoint somebody else who had the stature of Dr. Robert Elgie - namely, Innis Christie - as the chairman.
In terms of Innis Christie's qualifications, I just want to read for the record what is in our book. So I didn't write this. This is what the government wrote. "This appointee has been the Chairman of the WCB for five years. He has extensive background and experience in administrative and employment law, has been Professor of Law at Dalhousie Law School since 1971 and served as Dean from 1985 to 1991. He served as the Deputy Minister of Labour, and Chair of the Labour Relations Board and the Construction Industry Panel. Innis Christie is a nationally recognized labour relations expert and arbitrator and has authored numerous books and publications in this area." Nova Scotia is very, very fortunate indeed to have someone of the stature of Innis Christie as the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. It is people like Dr. Robert Elgie and Innis Christie who have lifted the board out of the mire of patronage and political favouritism that tainted it for decades.
Let's make no mistake about it. Innis Christie would like to be reappointed as the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, but he would like to be reappointed for a full five year term. I won't put words in his mouth, but I think if anybody spoke to him they might find that he finds it more than mildly insulting that he was offered a seven month extension. I don't think people realize how fortunate we are to have someone like him. To a certain extent, one might even say that he is doing a favour to Nova Scotia by agreeing to what is really for him, for a person of his position, chump change, to be Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.
It is my understanding that a seven month extension just didn't fit into his plans. This is a person who is in national demand, not just provincial, to do arbitrations and mediations and things like that. He has taught a generation of lawyers, not just in Nova Scotia but across Canada, on labour law. This is a person of the utmost integrity and prominence and non-partisan standing. He is being insulted by this government, by being offered a seven month extension rather than the five years that he was seeking and that, in normal circumstances, one would expect would be offered to a person of his prominence.
It is my understanding, although I have not seen it, that Mr. [Innis] Christie has written a letter to the Minister of Environment and Labour outlining precisely why he is turning down the offer of a seven month extension. I have not seen the letter, but I know it exists and I would think that every member of this committee would want to see that letter in Mr. [Innis] Christie's own words, from his own mouth, before we agree to accept a letter from a deputy minister saying, well, he has decided to withdraw.
If Alison Scott wants to appear here, I will listen to her because I will have a few questions for her. If David Morse wants to appear in that seat explaining why it turned out this way, I will listen to him because I will have a few questions for him. If Innis Christie is invited to appear, I have some questions for him and I will listen to him, but the idea of accepting a letter from a deputy minister withdrawing this application under these circumstances, I think it is just utterly unacceptable. As if that is not bad enough, it appears that the reason why the government is happy not to have Mr. [Innis] Christie continue as chair is because there is a prominent Tory who has been lobbying for the job and there are certain prominent and powerful Tories who want him to have the job. They would rather put partisan interests ahead of doing what is right for the Workers' Compensation Board and for the injured workers of Nova Scotia after the history that I have just described of being driven into the ground by patronage. I am just about done.
The Cameron Government lifted it out of that muck. The Liberal Government continued that and I can't believe that this government would want to take us back to those days.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been very patient on this and allowed this to go for 15 minutes on something which as a committee basically we really, the name was withdrawn the way it was supposed to be withdrawn and the way it is done historically. I will take two more comments and then move on if that is okay. So we have . . .
MR. STEELE: It is not okay, Mr. Chairman, and if you would like me to put a motion on the floor today, then I will do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is a motion, then we will debate it. Mr. Olive.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a long drawn-out debate about this. Mr. [Innis] Christie, no one questions his capability, his integrity, or his professional value and his history with the WCB and nobody should infer from anything that is happening here anything other than the fact that Mr. [Innis] Christie made a significant decision for professional reasons not to accept this appointment. As far as I am concerned, that is his decision. We should not be trying to second-guess the reasons why he has decided to do this. There is nothing hidden in the closet here. It is a straight decision, a professional decision made by an extremely capable and intelligent individual. As a result of that decision to the minister, or to the department, we have been requested by the deputy minister, as is the normal course of events, to withdraw this appointment from the agenda and I believe we should move along in that vein.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I have never seen my colleague, the member for Dartmouth South, look so sheepish as what I have just heard, but I would argue with you that it is not normal procedure, nor should this committee accept this as normal procedure. If we are now told that there was a letter submitted by the candidate directly to the Department of
Labour indicating that he did not wish to have his name go forward and listing out reasons why, that letter should be made available to this committee out of courtesy to this committee.
I would argue that, in fact, this committee would have a right to get access to that letter. I already said previously in my comments, not knowing a letter had been submitted, that I did not feel that just getting a letter from the deputy saying the candidate wanted to withdraw their name, someone of the qualifications of Mr. [Innis] Christie, I am sure would not simply call and say, by the way, yank my name. I am sure that he would have done so in a more professional manner and it appears that has taken place. I would submit to you on behalf of this committee that you immediately request from the Department of Labour a copy of that letter and that letter be circulated to all members of this committee; not when we meet again, but immediately upon its receipt by you as chairman.
I would argue to you that it is not normal procedure for us to have to rely on the word of the deputy minister when a candidate has sent correspondence clearly indicating with their own signature that they want their name withdrawn. I certainly haven't been on this committee for an extremely long time - in fact, I believe my colleague here, Dr. Smith, would be the one with the most senior experience on this committee of anyone around this table - but I would argue that it is not normal procedure and that this committee should get a copy of that letter submitted by Mr. [Innis] Christie, especially considering that it may outline exactly what his reasons are for not wanting his name to go forward. One would hope as legislators, that we would be responsible enough to hear the concerns of this Nova Scotian and possibly seek to make changes based on the concerns that he has raised. To do anything less would be a negligence of our duties as legislators.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maureen MacDonald.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: Well, I certainly support and agree with the suggestions of the member for Richmond. It is our responsibility to make decisions on the basis of knowledge and full disclosure and we do not have full disclosure, obviously, in this situation. I don't know what normal procedure is here because the procedure seems to be changed quite frequently, depending on the situation.
In my time on this committee, I have heard it argued that this committee is not a rubber stamp for appointments, that it is a meaningful process. I can't think of a better opportunity, since I have been a member of this committee, to actually demonstrate that this committee isn't merely a rubber stamp for the government's decisions. I certainly do not feel comfortable in following these directives that have come forward without having all of the information and I certainly would like to know what Mr. [Innis] Christie's letter to the minister or the deputy minister contained before making any decisions here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not aware that Mr. [Innis] Christie wrote a letter to the minister, but that is what has been said. Anyway, is there any further discussion or does someone want to put a motion about this matter? We have spent 20 minutes on it. Yes, I will let the member for Richmond speak first since he had his hand up, and then I will entertain your motion.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, as a result of that, I would hereby move that this committee now rise for five minutes and that you, as chairman, contact the deputy minister and request that the letter, if it does exist, be faxed over to us, and that we reconvene and deal with the other matters before us until such time as that letter does arrive. In other words, keep the appointment of the Workers' Compensation Board as our last item to be dealt with and that in the meantime, it will give the deputy the necessary time to fax that letter over. Then we can review that letter and then make a decision.
The motion is not intended to hold up the committee, but simply for you to take five minutes to make the phone call, we reconvene, deal with the other matters at hand and then deal with the last matter once we receive the fax from the deputy minister either confirming if there is a letter, send us a copy, or if there isn't, indicating that no such letter has been received by the department.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to second that motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't second motions here at the committee. We have a motion on the floor, the member for Dartmouth South would like to speak to it and then, I believe, the member for Sackville-Beaver Bank.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just regarding the specific motion, we don't know that there is a letter; somebody said there is a letter. The fact is that our function here in this committee is to vote yes or no on the names submitted, notwithstanding if there is a name withdrawn. We have not in past practices delayed the committee process to acquire additional information, and I think to do that at this point would set a precedent that could have us adjourning and asking for additional information on every appointment that comes before the ABCs. I think it is an unnecessary precedent that would be set and so I would be speaking against the motion.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARRY BARNET: Mr. Chairman, I find it particularly offensive that members of the Opposition Parties won't accept the written word of a deputy minister of this province. I find it particularly offensive that it is a deputy minister who served this province very well over the past number of years, whose reputation is one of high stature, in my opinion and I
thought in the opinion of the members opposite. Quite frankly, I won't be supporting it either.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, that is probably the most feeble-minded argument I have ever heard yet in my elected time, to say that this (Interruption) I won't even go there. It is no use fighting an unarmed man.
To turn this into an Opposition attacking the deputy minister is absolutely ridiculous. I think what we have indicated here is that there is some information that Mr. [Innis] Christie has written directly to the Department of Environment and Labour indicating his reasons here. I believe out of respect to Mr. [Innis] Christie, in the years that he has served this province and served it with distinction, that we should be in receipt of that letter prior to making a decision here and, as responsible legislators, if he has raised concerns about this process, we should be willing to look at those, review them and see if there are any changes that we can make based on the fact that, as Mr. Steele pointed out, this gentleman is regarded nationally as an expert on labour issues.
I think out of respect to all Nova Scotians, we should see his concerns prior to making a decision here. This is not in any way a reflection on the deputy minister. In fact, the deputy minister's family are former residents of Richmond County and I have the highest respect for the deputy. The process here is what is in question and we want to, if there is such a piece of correspondence, a mere five minutes of our time would give you lots of opportunity to verify if it exists or not and we can continue with the rest of our business and table this matter until you have had the chance to speak to the deputy minister to see if that exists.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, Mr. Chisholm and then we can go for the question.
MR. STEELE: I would like to say that I think the motion the member for Richmond has put on the floor is eminently reasonable. Let's just go over what it is he is proposing. He is proposing, I have suggested that there is a letter. In case there is any member on that side who has any doubt, in case there is anybody who wants to play the know-nothing, know-no-evil, see-no-evil game, the letter exists. There is such a letter.
The member for Richmond has proposed that we adjourn for five minutes so that the chairman can attempt to obtain a copy of the letter. When we come back after the five minutes, we go through the rest of our agenda and we defer this matter to the end of the meeting, which could be a half hour for the letter to arrive. When we have that letter, then we can consider the matter again. So the motion really is the committee does its business and we attempt to obtain the information that exists.
MR. SAMSON: It should have been attached to this.
MR. STEELE: What more responsible approach could there be? I just think the government members might want to think a little bit about what message they are sending if they vote against the motion.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I think the letter from the deputy minister is quite clear as to what has happened. It says, "The current chair, Innis Christie, was offered a reappointment to a term consistent with the current review of the Workers' Compensation Act. Mr. Christie declined this appointment . . ." Having said that, I would call for the question on Mr. Samson's motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we go for the vote, I would like to ask Mora, since she has had more experience than any of us with this committee, what normally has been done in the past. That will provide some sort of basis for our decision making, I would assume.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): I have seen committees adjourn to caucus on certain things, so it wouldn't be unusual to adjourn for a 5 or 10 minute break. It is usually done during reports or things like that or if an issue comes up. It doesn't happen very often, but it certainly has happened in the past that committees have adjourned. I would have to sort of search records to find out which ones. There already has been things. We have done it in Public Accounts before. I cannot recall if it has been done here before, dealing with ABCs.
Also, on the withdrawal letter, it was always either the deputy minister, the minister or Executive Council. We have received letters from all three. It has never been made clear that it would have to be a minister or the Executive Council. When there has been a withdrawal, it has been any one of the three to do that. So just to clarify that and that might be something the subcommittee might like to deal with and put forward some suggestions. It was just standard procedure before that as long as there is a letter of withdrawal, it could be from any one of those three.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor. I would like to get a little further advice before we call for the vote. We don't have a decision to make, in some senses. I am sort of floundering with the decision the names have been withdrawn.
MR. STEELE: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, you do have a decision to make and that is whether to take this item off our agenda.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to have a few minutes to myself, but we do have a motion on the floor and I am not terribly sure whether I am allowed to call for a five minute break, not on the motion, but just for some time for myself to see what traditionally has been done in the past with a name that has been withdrawn, because we really don't have a decision to make, the name has been withdrawn in my opinion. But I would like just a few minutes to make sure that that has been the procedure that is followed. But we do have a
motion on the floor, and I probably should have asked for this a few minutes beforehand. If you want to give me the grace to give me a few minutes just so I can consult. We don't have our legal counsel here and I would just like to find out.
I guess my position right now is we don't have a decision to make. The name has been withdrawn, and it has been withdrawn according to precedent, but I would like to make sure that that is really a fair position. (Interruption) And then we will come back and vote on the motion, is that acceptable? Okay, we will have a five minute recess.
[9:37 a.m. The committee recessed.]
[9:43 a.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hebb, as legal counsel, can give us his opinion. We still make the final decision and I need to put that very clearly, because I don't want to put Mr. Hebb in a position. But, he can give us some legal background that I personally don't have as chairman and so he will be here. So, with your permission, if we could just stand the motion until after Mr. Hebb is here and continue with our other business - is that acceptable? Can we agree to do that? He is on his way here. Do we have agreement on that?
DR. JAMES SMITH: Just to be clear, we were discussing correspondence?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We were discussing correspondence. We will move back to correspondence once Mr. Hebb arrives here.
DR. SMITH: Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So, we have appointments to ABCs, you have the book in front of you. I need to make one correction to the book. I am not sure if everyone is aware of this, but Mr. Leo McKay is listed as an alternate member on both the Construction Industry Panel, Labour Relations Board and the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia. On the second board, the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia he is a full member, so please scratch out the alternate. He is being proposed as an alternate member on the Construction Industry Panel and as a full member on the Labour Relations Board. So we will proceed and when Mr. Hebb arrives, thanks to your agreement, we will move back to the correspondence and as is our custom, if you could read out for the record, the department, the agency and the name, please and thank you.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: For the Department of Education, St. Francis Xavier University Foundation, Iain Daniel Boyd as a member and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on this name? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
On to the next slate of names.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, I move under the Department of Environment and Labour, Construction Industry Panel, Labour Relations Board, Leo F. McKay as an alternate member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on this motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, I move under the Department of Environment and Labour, Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia, Leo F. McKay as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next slate, and for Legislative TV, I should recognize you before you make the nomination. Mr. Cecil Clarke, who is the MLA for Cape Breton North. We will just finish with this.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: For the first item, Mr. Chairman, I move for the Department of Health, the appointment for the Board of Dispensing Opticians: Thomas C. Burlock, Gregory J. Gillam and Sandra Impraim as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor regarding the Board of Dispensing Opticians. Is there any discussion on this? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CLARKE: I was just going to close out the Department of Health, if you don't mind.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, good, please do.
MR. CLARKE: I would also move the appointment for the Council of the Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, Cotter Oliver, as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on this motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: With your permission, we will go back to correspondence.
MR. OLIVE: Why don't we just continue with those and come back to the correspondence and the Workers' Compensation Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? Are you under time pressure?
DR SMITH: It doesn't matter. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, I so move Carl S. Gannon, Beverley D. Johnson and Rima Majaess as Commissioners.
MR. SPEAKER: Is there any discussion on these names? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I just want to say, not in relation to these particular individuals necessarily, but the Human Rights Commission is one of the most important ABCs that we have because of the nature of the work that they do. It is a very difficult time in the history of the Human Rights Commission. I, for one, would have preferred that this committee would have more information before it to enable us to judge whether, from all the applications, these were the very best qualified people. There might be some debate among members about relative importance and whether some ABCs need to be more or less partisan than others. I don't think there would be much question that the Human Rights Commission is one that the people in Nova Scotia deserve the very, very best people.
These people, I read through their material and they come with a significant amount of qualifications. But I am just troubled as a member of the Human Resources Committee, I don't feel I am in a position to judge whether, from all the applicants, these are the very best qualified people. So I will just say for the record again, as I say at every one of these meetings, in my view, this committee is not given the material that is necessary to make the judgment that we are supposed to be making. So with that comment, Mr. Chairman, I say I
will be supporting these names but I sure wish this committee had less the flavour of a rubber stamp and more the flavour of a real decision-making body.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: If I can just make a quick comment. I guess I do agree with the member for Halifax Fairview on the importance of the candidates for this commission. I think it is an extremely important commission but, I guess, in this case, considering that the minister signs off as them being the best candidates and in light that our current Minister of Justice actually has a Queen's Council designation also, only history will judge whether these were the best candidates or not, and one can only hope that the minister did take that into very serious consideration. Clearly, I think these three individuals have a lot to contribute to this province and certainly we will be supporting their candidacy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on these names, on this motion? The question has been called for. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
The next group, does someone want to - just wave at me if you want to and I will recognize you. Mr. Chisholm.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, I would move for the Department of Natural Resources, the Primary Forest Products Marketing Board of Nova Scotia: Mr. Brent Silver, vice-chairman and member at large; Loman Ayer, member at large; Michael Gillis, member; Doug Lees, member at large; and Alex MacDonald, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on these names? The question has been called for. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
The next block, Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I so move for the Department of Tourism and Culture, Peggy's Cove Commission: Murray Garrison, chairman and member; and Darrell C. Fralick and Becky Mason, members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on these names? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The next group, would you want to continue, Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: The Department of Tourism and Culture, the Shubenacadie Canal Commission: James L. Harrison, Peter Harrison and Maurice E. Lloyd, all commissioners, and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Are you ready for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the last one was sent out in a different package. You have it. Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for the Department of Tourism and Culture, the Arts Council of Nova Scotia: Linda Carvery, Eric Favaro, W.L. Jollimore, Marilyn MacDonald and Alan Syliboy as members. I know some of those names.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on these names? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
[The motion is carried.]
With the committee's concurrence, we will move back to correspondence and I thank Mr. Gordon Hebb for coming over. I have stressed, Gordon, that you are just giving us your opinion, we make the decision, and we will make that decision, but I do appreciate, as chairman, you being willing to come over and address the question.
The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that a name has been withdrawn and it has been withdrawn according to our precedent. The allegation has been made that there is a letter from the candidate himself and that we should see that letter before we accept the withdrawal of the name. I think that sums up what the issue is before us.
MR. STEELE: Well, there is one item that I am not sure is a matter for a legal opinion but, nevertheless, that is the question of the appropriate procedure for withdrawing a name from the agenda of the committee because we have a letter from a deputy minister who is not one of the people who signed the recommendation. The sense I got was that there are at least some committee members who would simply take a letter like that as a fait accompli and that the committee has no say in whether after receiving a letter such as that, that there is actually anything to discuss about whether that name ought to be removed from the agenda. I think that is an issue worthy of discussion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are probably right. I think that is a prior question. This has been our practice I understand from Mora, that this is the appropriate procedure that we follow by precedent. So perhaps before we deal with this other letter which we don't even know exists, we could talk about appropriate procedures. Is this the appropriate procedure, in your opinion, for the withdrawal of a name?
MR. GORDON HEBB: Well, I guess my opinion would be that the purpose of the committee is to approve appointments that are being made by another body and if that other body doesn't wish to make those appointments, then the appointment becomes irrelevant at this committee, there is nothing for the committee to approve. So as long as the committee is satisfied that the name actually has been withdrawn, I don't think there is anything for the committee to discuss. If the committee wishes to get into deciding - I mean if they can't make the appointment without the committee's approval and they withdraw the name, someone is not planning to make the appointment, I don't see the purpose of the committee discussing it. The committee has to be satisfied that, in fact, the name has been withdrawn, but once you have decided that I don't see what there is to discuss. I don't know if that is helpful.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is very helpful. Is there any further discussion before we go for the vote on the motion? Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Just one other point, understanding what Mr. Hebb has just said that the letter, in fact, would not be an issue, could not be an issue because the name has been withdrawn, therefore, there is no appointment. The members opposite do have the option if, after the fact of FOIPOP-ing that letter, if, in fact, there is a letter, and if, in fact, Mr. [Innis] Christie wishes to have that letter made public which nobody has mentioned yet, it may have been a private and confidential letter - if it exists - to the minister and may, in fact, not be available whether we want it or not.
So the fact is that whatever happens here, that letter is up to the point of being able to be FOIPOP-able and then that decision would then be made, I presume, by other people. If this letter exists and Mr. [Innis] Christie agrees to have it released, I would presume that it could be. Notwithstanding that it is not an issue given the suggestion by Mr. Hebb, I would like to call for the question on Mr. Samson's motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called for. You had your hand up before the question was called for, Mr. Samson, and then just out of courtesy, a very quick comment - Mr. Steele, is that allowable? - and then we will go for the question.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to accept any restriction on what I am allowed to say. I am sorry, if I want to speak, I will speak and I won't accept restrictions on how long I am allowed to speak.
MR. CLARKE: Someone else has the floor right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson, if you could speak, and I will recognize you, Mr. Steele.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, the point here is not only have we been told, according to the deputy minister, he is claiming that Mr. [Innis] Christie does not want the appointment. He has gone on further to give us reasons for that. I am quite concerned to see if these actually are the reasons given by Mr. [Innis] Christie. I think if the deputy minister had simply said he has declined and ended it there, but he went further to give us reasons for that being declined. That is obviously based on further information the deputy minister has received, which is why I would argue this committee has a right to see exactly why Mr. Christie has declined that appointment.
If he has, we are led to believe that there is written correspondence which - Mr. Chairman, this is not rocket science, a simple phone call to the deputy minister, and in five minutes you will know whether a letter exists or not, whether Mr. [Innis] Christie has marked private and confidential on it or not. This is not rocket science we are talking about here. A simple phone call would address that. Obviously, by the fact the deputy has gone on to give excuses, we should have a right to see what Mr. [Innis] Christie has pointed out and, as I said earlier, as responsible legislators, if he has outlined concerns about this process, about the length of time with the term, I think if we are going to be responsible in our duties here, and you as chairman, we should be willing to look at those and see if there are any possible changes that should be made based on the concerns that he has raised.
To do anything less, I think, is, once again, an abrogation of our duties here, especially for you as chairman, to simply make this phone call - we are not asking you to send a man to the moon here, Mr. Chairman, and I think we are being more than reasonable - and as the chairman you should have the right to be able to independently say you are going to go forward and call the deputy minister and then report back to this committee before a decision is made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele, my apologies for trying to restrict your free speech. Please go ahead.
MR. STEELE: The opinion that we have received from the Legislative Counsel is that the job of this committee is to approve or not recommendations for appointments being forwarded by the Executive Council. Although those were not his words exactly, that I take to be the gist of what you are saying.
As far as this committee's procedure is concerned, what we have, Mr. Chairman, is a letter from the Deputy Minister of Environment and Labour. He does not speak for the Executive Council and if the Executive Council wishes to withdraw the recommendation,
the Executive Council may withdraw the recommendation. They have not done so. We have a letter from someone else, Mr. Chairman, and I am not satisfied that that is an appropriate procedure for withdrawing a recommendation from the Executive Council to have a letter from someone who is not a member of the Executive Council and doesn't purport to speak for them the way, for example, the Clerk does.
[10:00 a.m.]
Beyond that though, I am surprised, given the allegations that I and Mr. Samson have made here today about the circumstances under which this is being withdrawn, that the members on that side of the table, the Progressive Conservative side, don't appear to have the least interest in finding out, in their capacity as members of the committee, what exactly is going on here. One of the most prominent labour lawyers in Canada is withdrawing his name for a very sensitive position and I would have thought that as public servants, the members on the Progressive Conservative side would have a few questions about exactly why that happened.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, it has already been clarified earlier here at this meeting that the people who have been recognized for adding or deleting information to this, or withdrawing information, or names to this committee, the deputy minister, I believe, indeed falls within that proper authority. I think really the question has been called and you noted two other speakers and I would ask we move on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is called for. Are you clear on the motion? Everyone is clear on the motion, it doesn't need to be restated? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated. (Interruption)
MR. HEBB: You would have to pay me extra to get me to vote. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Hebb.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, there is another motion on the table.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there?
MR. OLIVE: I already gave the motion on withdrawing it in accordance with Mr. [Innis] Christie's letter, prior to Michel's motion - or sorry, Mr. McNamara's letter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Olive, could you please refresh me on the motion.
MR. OLIVE: I did make the motion, didn't I, Jim?
DR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. OLIVE: Yes, I thought I did. (Interruption) So it didn't get completed, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a motion? Please go ahead.
MR. OLIVE: I will defer to Jim's recollection. I did start to make one and then you went to Michel. So I would like to make a motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do.
MR. OLIVE: I would like to move that the agenda be amended to remove the appointment to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board - I guess it is, isn't it? - no, the Workers' Compensation Board, in accordance with the request of the letter from Mr. Kevin McNamara, Deputy Minister of Environment and Labour. (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you want this motion to go forward, I think our normal practice is if the name is withdrawn, it is withdrawn, but if you would like it to go forward . . .
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if the motion is out of order, you can make that decision and you can withdraw the agenda item. That is your choice.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am satisfied that the name was withdrawn according to our precedents and according to proper procedure and that is my ruling as chairman. We don't have anything really to vote on at this stage. It was done according to Hoyle.
MR. STEELE: In that case, I would like to put forward another motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before Mr. Steele, Dr. Smith, the honourable member for Dartmouth East.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just use a brief moment, I deferred to my colleague, the honourable member for Richmond, on matters, but I think this has been for me a very interesting meeting here this morning. I want to thank the member for Halifax Fairview and the member for Richmond for bringing this forward. I think we would all be better for this, that this has come a bit more into the open because I just had the opportunity to be in the Legislature since 1984, but I also did part-time practice where so much of it was involved with workers' compensation and the failure of that system.
I was a member of government in 1993, I saw the workers' compensation, I remember one day when we thought we were getting the finances so that we wouldn't be facing bankruptcy in this province, that again $200 million was found in workers' compensation that had not been detected by the actuaries, that was sort of hid in some system that was quite well outlined by the member for Halifax Fairview who has some legal experience with workers' compensation. I have a really bad feeling of what is happening in this province right now and I think this is a symptom here today and we haven't abused the time of the committee in debating this. This is a very prominent Canadian, a professor of law and we believe that there is a letter available that will spell out some of the reasons why this person chooses not to go forward with this position for a limited time as Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.
The whole issue of Bill No. 20 - and Nova Scotians are going to wake up pretty soon to find out what that means to this province - we have a system where it is being politicized again - I remember as well, the member for Halifax Fairview mentioned, campaign chairman for one of the Premiers being involved heavily in workers' compensation and the politicization of that system. That is what we are starting to see again. This is why I am proud of the Opposition members here this morning, that we have had the opportunity to speak out on this important matter.
This bill is very complex, it is very subtle, but it is very direct in where it is going. It is taking control back into government rather than an arm's-length organization that has just finally rose practically from the dead in this province. So, all the work the injured workers societies and all the others who have suffered so badly under this mismanagement - we are really, truly concerned. I speak for our caucus that we are going back to those bad old days again. The names we are hearing that are interested in this job are political people. This morning, we are just saying - we have said it here and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being very patient, very kind - these are ethical issues and I know you are very interested in those, so as chairman you have tried to be fair this morning and I want to thank you from our caucus for doing that. We just have a bad feeling that we are heading down a road that we have just extracted ourselves from and we will follow this. Yes, we will FOIPOP for that letter because we want to hear what this Canadian lawyer, who has great respect across this country, has to say about this system and where we are heading in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: The motion that I would like to put on the floor is that this committee invite Mr. [Innis] Christie to appear before it to explain the circumstances under which he withdrew his application for this position.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion on it? Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I certainly want to speak in support of the motion by Mr. Steele. I think it is a very reasonable motion. Quite possibly, Mr. [Innis] Christie may refuse to come before this committee and that is certainly his right, but based on Mr. [Innis] Christie's experience with labour issues in this province, with having worked as the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, I believe he can bring to us some of his comments in his time as chairman, some of the concerns that he might have with the legislation and the changes being made as to what direction this government may be going with workers' compensation.
On the flip side, he may come in here and give accolades to the government on how wonderful they are doing. That is entirely possible and one doesn't really know what we will have, but I believe this committee has clearly shown an interest in hearing from different groups and different individuals about their organizations. We have certainly had quite a few presentations from the cultural industry, especially the music industry. I think it would be more than appropriate in light of the concerns that have been raised here today to ask Mr. [Innis] Christie if he would like to appear before us in order to discuss his own current matter as to what has happened here. Maybe some suggestions that he would bring forward to this committee about future appointments and the appointment process to the Workers' Compensation Board and other possible boards.
I will repeat myself for him. As I said . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I was very rude, Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Basically, Mr. Chairman, what I have said is that I believe that it is more than reasonable to ask Mr. [Innis] Christie to come here. His experience is clearly impeccable, there is no doubt about that. I believe he could come here and give us some comments on his own experiences and any suggestions that he might make to this committee about the appointments process.
On top of that, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I find it personally very sad that you, as chairman, would require us to make motions to ask you to make a phone call to seek information on behalf of this committee. I think that is extremely sad, considering some of your written proclamations as to what you saw your role as in being a legislator. To see that you would ask committee members to make motions and speak on motions asking you to make a phone call, is particularly sad to have to request that of you. I certainly hope that that is not the way in which you are going to guide this committee in the future and that you will take your role as chairman seriously and when committee members ask for information, you do your best to get that and not be asking us to make motions with every request we have of you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion on it? Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, I think we are sliding down a slippery slope today. We are asking for someone who has withdrawn their name to appear before this committee. Tomorrow it could be any member that we intend to appoint. The next thing we are going to be interviewers or this is going to be an inquest, not a committee to appoint and, quite frankly, I don't think it is the right direction this committee needs to be going. I am concerned about the precedent and I am concerned about the way that this thing might unfold in the future. Quite frankly, I think it is really an abuse of our role as a committee as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just reading through the Rules and Forms of Procedure that govern our committee, "The Committee may interview a recommended candidate . . ." but this candidate is not recommended, therefore, the motion is really (Interruption) But it was withdrawn.
MR. SAMSON: Legally, he was recommended. We have the documentation here. It is signed and dated. He was recommended.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My decision is that this particular motion is out of order. (Interruption) It is very clear . . .
MR. CLARKE: The motion is out of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is very clear . . .
MR. STEELE: The motion is in order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I please finish?
MR. STEELE: Yes, I was answering the member for Cape Breton North.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is very, very clear that our prior decision was that the name was withdrawn according to the proper procedure. A motion to ask Ms. Scott to come before us to talk about what the procedure is would perhaps be in order. But this motion, I don't think, is in order, in my opinion. I am quite willing to hear your viewpoints, Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, if we can invite the Music Industry Association, if we can invite SOCAN, if we can invite Salter Street Films, we can invite to appear before us really anybody we please, including one of the most prominent labour lawyers in Canada, who happens to be a Nova Scotian, who happens to be an experienced Chairman of the WCB. Whether his name is on the table or not, this is the Human Resources Committee and we can invite him before this committee if we want to. Just the idea that inviting him is out of order, I find very strange.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I find no mandate for inviting him to interview, according to the Rules and Forms of Procedure.
MR. SAMSON: What is our mandate to get Salter Street Films in here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is under the hat we wear to look at matters under the Departments of Education, Culture, Labour and the Status of Women. This is very different.
MR. SAMSON: This is under the Department of Labour, workers' compensation, so it is in order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is under our ABC hat. I find no mandate and that is my ruling.
MR. STEELE: All right, then I will put another motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman. (Interruption)
MR. CHAIRMAN: That motion is out of order, yes. We have another motion. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would like to move that the Minister of Environment and Labour be invited to appear before the committee to explain the circumstances under which Innis Christie's application was withdrawn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is simply a rewording of the previous motion. As I said, I would accept a motion to deal with the issue of how names are withdrawn to make sure that we follow proper policy and procedure on that. But you are again focusing on Mr. [Innis] Christie, whose name was withdrawn according to the precedents, according to what we have done in the past. If you want to change that policy on how names are withdrawn and you want someone from Executive Council to talk about that, I will accept that motion. But I see this motion, Mr. Steele, as simply the other one reworded in a different guise. Yes, Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I hereby make the motion that this committee request Alison Scott to appear before the Human Resources Committee in order to discuss matters of appointment and withdrawal of names for committees and the procedures to be followed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that motion I will accept as in order. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Is there any further discussion on correspondence? Can we please move on to the next part of the agenda, meeting dates? The Subcommittee on Human Resources, we have two dates suggested. I guess they were put forward at the last meeting, or . . .
MS. STEVENS: If I may, these were just the dates that were open since we had to postpone our last meeting. We have meetings on June 12th and June 26th, so what is open at the moment are June 5th or June 19th or any other day that the subcommittee wishes to meet. Those were just the Tuesdays.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is really probably of interest only to the subcommittee members. Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I guess if the June 5th date is open, I would move that Ms. Scott be invited to the June 5th meeting so that we can have this discussion as early as possible so that this doesn't continue to be a reoccurring issue each and every time we meet to make appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you are confusing me. This is just a subcommittee meeting.
MR. SAMSON: Is there any way to move the subcommittee to a different date and have June 5th as the next meeting of Human Resources to deal with the presentation of Ms. Scott?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That wouldn't give enough time for the appointments to come in. We have a scheduled meeting at the end of each month.
MR. SAMSON: No, no. This would be like dealing with Salter Street Films.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you want to tack on with Salter Street Films?
MR. SAMSON: Or have a separate meeting just having Ms. Scott here. I am sure there would be enough questions that we won't need to have any appointments before us to discuss at the same time. So, I am suggesting we have a stand-alone meeting as early as possible to deal with her presentation prior to having to go back to appointments at the end of the month. I am suggesting we have a stand-alone meeting with Ms. Scott as soon as possible. The June 5th date, if it is open, would be a perfect date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is really the decision of the committee. Right now I would like to set a subcommittee meeting date and if I could hold your decision as to your suggestion re Ms. Scott to later, if that would be acceptable, once we set the subcommittee and the Salter Street Films.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the earliest I could make a subcommittee meeting is Tuesday, July 3rd.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How does that work with the other subcommittee members?
MR. STEELE: Yes, I am available on that date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you available, Dr. Smith?
DR. SMITH: I don't have my book, but I think so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable or unacceptable to you? Let's do it at 9:00 a.m. on July 3rd, if that is acceptable.
Moving on now to Salter Street Films and then I will come back to you, Mr. Samson. We have Salter Street Films which we have asked to come before us and that is set up on June 12th. That is the best date for Salter Street Films. That is agreed. The issue that you want to bring before us, Mr. Samson, I assume is, do we want to do two things on that day?
MR. SAMSON: Well, no, I guess we can either do two things on that day or what I would suggest is even better than that is that we use the Tuesday, June 5th date to have Ms. Scott make her presentation to this committee on that date and have a stand-alone meeting at that time. I see that as being marked as an available date for subcommittee. July 3rd has been chosen as that date, so I would suggest that we ask Ms. Scott - based on her own schedule, she may not be available - if she could make herself available for the Tuesday, June 5th date.
MR. OLIVE: If the honourable member for Richmond would consider, I guess my first question is, how long will Salter take? If the meeting starts at 9:00 a.m., are they going to be finished by 10:30 a.m.?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably.
MR. OLIVE: If they are, could we not do them both on the same day? Could we not have from 10:30 a.m. until whatever to do the other discussion? Why do we have to have two days? You are not talking about a two hour discussion with Ms. Scott, I wouldn't think. Maybe you are, but I would suggest you are not.
MR. SAMSON: Unfortunately, my crystal ball hasn't been working the last few days, so I don't know that. I guess Salter Street Films has been quite busy in the last six months. I wouldn't want to shorten their meeting time any more than necessary. At the same time, we all have busy schedules and I don't want to see us having to be here for extensive periods of time. We have set aside two hours.
MR. OLIVE: Can we go from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, instead of 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Typically, we have two on one day. So for Salter Street to be on one day, we have time on that day to do it, because typically we give them an hour each. Now if you want to give Salter Street an hour and a half and spend the rest of the time, that would fit well with the schedule, in my opinion.
MR. SAMSON: I guess my only concern is - and I don't have objections to dealing with both on the same day - that this committee not look at the clock and say, okay, that is it, we are all done now and there is no more discussion. If that is an agreement, then I have no problems having both on the same day.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed that we could go up to 12:00 noon on June 12th, if Ms. Scott is available. She may not be available on that day.
MR. SAMSON: I guess what I would suggest, in the spirit of co-operation, is that she be given the same date, June 12th, and she if not available, to see if either June 5th or June 19th would be more suitable to her. Let's give her some options. Let's not tie our hands. Let's try to team her up with Salter Street. If it doesn't work, let's try to get her in on a different date.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are not meeting on June 5th or June 19th, we are meeting on June 12th or June 26th. Would it not be more suitable to suggest June 12th or June 26th as dates to Ms. Scott?
MR. SAMSON: We can. I guess my suggestion is, Mr. Chairman, in light of what has happened today, I think it is in the best interest of this committee that Ms. Scott make her presentation before we meet again to make appointments here. I think the whole idea here is to clear up the air on the procedure and the process and that it would be in everyone's best interest that it be away from the regular appointments so that we can clearly have an understanding here of what the rules of engagement are, prior to going back into appointments. That is my suggestion.
I think if you wait until June 26th, you might be confusing those appointments with her presentation and we won't have the full benefit of that presentation. I strongly suggest it take place as soon as possible. If we have to have a special meeting for it, I think the issues raised today have been serious enough and the level of discussion would warrant that we have a special meeting, if necessary, with Ms. Scott if we can't team her up with Salter Street Films because of any scheduling conflict that she might have. That is my suggestion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is really the committee's decision. I am sort of loath to have a special meeting simply because of the cost of it. But it is really up to the committee to make a decision on what they want. Certainly we have decided, I think we have agreed that if Ms. Scott is available on June 12th, we will add her in on June 12th. The decision is, if she is not available on June 12th, she may not be available on June 5th or June 19th, either.
MR. SAMSON: Let's give her options at least.
MR. OLIVE: Is this option 2?
MR. SAMSON: Actually June 5th is option 2 and June 19th is option 3.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the committee agree with this? Okay. If there is agreement, then that is what we will do. Then our appointment to ABCs is on June 26th, as normal.
MR. OLIVE: You can't change that date?
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is wrong with that date?
MR. OLIVE: Check your calendar.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that date will not be suitable for me as chairman. Is there any possibility of changing June 26th? We like to have it as late as possible because that gives the different departments time to get in the names.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: You don't have a vice-chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have a vice-chairman and the vice-chairman could take that meeting. However, I have a feeling he might not have a full quorum. (Interruptions)
MS. STEVENS: I think you need to get order soon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please, order, we have to finish up our meeting.
DR. SMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, just on a clarification. What was July 3rd? I seem to have missed something.
MR. CHAIRMAN: July 3rd is the subcommittee meeting.
DR. SMITH: It is the subcommittee. Okay, I wanted to be sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we could hold over the meeting until July 3rd could we not? No, we are not allowed to.
MS. STEVENS: We need to meet once a month, but there is no saying we have to meet on Tuesday either. That just happens to be the day. If you want to meet on another day during that week and if we are meeting that last week, it allows for the Cabinet meeting, so I would suggest sometime between June 25th and June 29th.
MR. BARNET: Monday.
MR. SAMSON: Monday is out, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Monday is out. Tuesday is out. Wednesday is not good. How about Thursday, June 28th? Does that work?
MR. SAMSON: If it doesn't conflict with Community Services.
MS. STEVENS: I will have to find out from Darlene, but we could do it so that it is an opposite time, not back to back, but . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, June 28th. We are agreed on 9:00 a.m. Are there any other items for discussion? If not, a motion to adjourn would be more than in order.
MR. OLIVE: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:27 a.m.]