MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to convene this meeting of the Human Resources Committee and perhaps we could start by going around the table and introducing ourselves. We will start, perhaps, with Mr. Samson.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. With that we will move into the business of agencies, boards and commissions appointments. I think everybody has their binder in front of them.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Economic Development, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, I move Michael D. Casey as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Education, Advisory Council on the Status of Women, I move the names of Sonja Power and Rita Warner as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for the Department of Education, Teachers' Certification Appeal Committee, Cheryl Hodder, Mary E. Meisner and Nancy Mosher to be members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Health, Board of Dispensing Opticians, I move Marlene Bayers, John Butler, Dr. Lystra R. Dayal-Gosine, Annette Knight and Robert MacLeod to be members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: For the Department of Health, Health Authority Districts, District No. 1, South Shore, I so move Marie Crooker, Jim Smith, Jan O. Sundin and Ken Wilkinson, all as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. JAMES SMITH: I just wanted to make a point that there seem to be inadequate CVs on Smith, Sundin and Wilkinson. Maybe we could have some clarification on that, Mr. Chairman, of why that would be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I certainly stand to be corrected. My understanding is that in that case there is no remuneration for being a member of that authority, therefore if it is $100 or less no CV is requested. That is my understanding of the guidelines.
DR. SMITH: A CV says more than whether someone is justified to receive government money or not. You are talking about these boards making decisions, important ones, and as we mentioned the Social Assistance Appeal Board, being a semi-judicial board, whether they are paid or not, to me, wouldn't be the issue. It was my understanding that when the notice goes in the newspaper that it is requesting CVs. I think we should have some idea of the qualifications of the person, that is what I am saying, if they are coming forward and
have strengths that would add to, in this case, the District Health Authority No. 1. If it is a practice we are going to start, then I think we should be clear. I have been a member of this committee for a period of time, and I wasn't aware of that.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: If I could just ask, Mr. Chairman, where exactly is that stated, that if it is less than $100 a day no CV is required by the Human Resources Committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask anybody to help me out, finding that. I know it is not too far away from any of us.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I think, with the previous chair, we had this discussion once before. The chairman did indicate that it was his understanding. Now, he didn't exactly specify where it was.
MR. GORDON HEBB: With each of the candidates there is a sheet. For example, on Mr. Smith it says the Standing Committee on Human Resources Guidelines, and there is a series of questions from 1 to 13. It says in Question 8, "If the answer to question #6 . . .", which is the remuneration question, ". . . is $100 or more per day, a current resume or CV of the applicant must be attached to this form!" For him it says, "CV is attached although the position is not remunerated." Anyway, that is where I read it.
MR. KEVIN DEVEAUX: Now I have a question. According to the guidelines, according to the answer to Question 8, there is a CV attached, yet there is no CV attached. I guess I am wondering, what happened to the CV?
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is for which candidate?
MR. DEVEAUX: Jim Smith.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, were these questions asked last time he was appointed? This is an extension of a one year term that he already had, so he has been appointed to this board, has the experience and has just asked for a reappointment.
MR. OLIVE: These are community appointments?
MR. CHAIRMAN: These are all community health board appointments, yes.
MR. OLIVE: I think it is important to note, for the members, that these are community board appointments. Perhaps the community involved that recommended him didn't see the need to provide them, they had already done their review of the individual. I can only make that as a suggestion, not with any knowledge, but as community board appointments that is where they came from, if that assists you any.
MR. DEVEAUX: I appreciate that in many cases these are extensions, but obviously there is a reason why this board is here, to have to re-approve these. If it was just extensions that could be done as a rubber stamp, then Lord knows we wouldn't be using this committee as a rubber stamp. I would also look at Ken Wilkinson on this one. In Question 8, his answer says there is a CV attached, although I don't see a CV. I believe the same goes for Jan Sundin, I am taking that as a doctor's name as well. It talks about a CV being attached, yet I don't see one.
This is procedural, but the point is that if this committee is supposed to be the committee that is supposed to have the final approval of extensions or first approval of people for community health boards or any ABC, I think it is important that if the information says there is a CV attached and it isn't attached that raises a concern in my mind.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is certainly a very good concern. We have a couple here where it says the CV is attached and it is not in our booklet, and that is an oversight, I guess, on my part, I didn't pick that up. I certainly appreciate that. We will look into that and find out where they are and distribute them to the members.
Is there any more discussion? Would all those in favour of the appointments to District Health Authority No. 1 please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, Health Authority Districts, District No. 2, South West Nova, I move Donald Bower as chair and member, and Rodger MacKinnon as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been moved. Is there any discussion?
MR. SAMSON: I should also point out that Donald Bower does not have a CV attached to his application. This seems to be a continuing problem. Once again, it says, "CV is attached although the position is not remunerated.", and there is no CV.
MR. OLIVE: Again, it is a community appointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any more discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 3, Annapolis Valley, I move Peter S. Mosher as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 4, Colchester-East Hants, I move Ancel Langille and Barbara Whiston as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 5, Cumberland, I move Beryl A. MacDonald and Creighton A. McCarthy as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 6, Pictou County, I move James MacArthur, Robert E. Priske and Richard B. Shaver as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 7, Guysborough-Antigonish-Strait, I move N. Robert Anderson, Betty MacNeil and Wendy Panagopoulos as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Health, District Health Authority No. 8, Cape Breton, I so move Mildred Evans, Dr. D. Lorne MacLellan and Elaine Rankin as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, for the District Health Authority No. 9, Capital District, I move the names of Linda M. Best, Terrence D. Daniels and Dr. Ed Kinley as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Health, Practical Nurses Licensing Board, I so move the name of Rev. Jack R. Briggins to be a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Treasury and Policy Board, Voluntary Planning Board of Nova Scotia, I move the names of J.D. (Jim) Eisenhauer as chair, D.F. (David) Bellefontaine, vice-chair; and Bernd Christmas, Louis R. Comeau, J. Colin Dodds, Suzanne Elizabeth Drapeau, Mayann Francis, Hector J. Jacques, Rick MacDonald, Daniel William MacInnes, Dr. Teresa MacNeil, and Robert Waldon as directors.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Just a question, now that we have legal counsel here. I am just curious as to whether Mayann Francis and her position with the government already, whether this would be a conflict of interest for her to be serving on this type of board, because if I have any complaints of a human rights nature out of sorts with the Voluntary Planning Board, who do I go to when the director of that is sitting on the board? So I am just curious whether there is cause for concern in that case.
It is more from an administrative point of view, it is not any criticism of Ms. Francis but it is just a question of whether it is appropriate for her to be on that board in light of her position with the government.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe if you don't mind, we will go along to Mr. Deveaux while Mr. Hebb is looking through.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, just briefly on that point. Our Party has always had a concern with Ms. Francis being both the Ombudsman and the Chair of the Human Rights Commission. There is clearly a conflict there and we feel that that is a problem, but given her reputation and given the role of Voluntary Planning, I don't think we see this necessarily as a conflict. There are clearly conflicts in her other roles that we would like to see addressed but with regard to this, Voluntary Planning has a fairly unique role to play with regard to advising government and I don't think we see this as necessarily a problem.
MR. HEBB: I don't have the whole Statute here, just some extracts but from my familiarity, I would echo the comment of Mr. Deveaux, I don't see a practical conflict between the role of this board off the top of my head and her job. I also point out that in Section 3(1) of the Act which sets out who can be appointed, there certainly is no legal restriction of appointing members of the Public Service, but without seeing the whole Act, I couldn't be more positive, but that would be my suggestion from my memory of the Statute that there would be, in fact, no practical conflict on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be reasonable for us to proceed and ask Mr. Hebb to, after this meeting, go back and review and send something out to everyone after he has reviewed the Statute?
MR. SAMSON: Sure. The only comment I would make, I guess I am not raising it just because she works in the Public Service, I am certainly not suggesting that any civil servant should not be able to be appointed to these boards. What I am highlighting is her actual position in the Public Service in the role of Ombudsman and the Director of the Human Rights Commission. So that is why I am red-flagging that as we red-flagged municipal councillors sitting on the social assistance appeals committee. So it is a similar type of concern. So yes, if he wants to report back, sure.
MR. DEVEAUX: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the record, being the Ombudsman and in charge of the Human Rights Commission, I don't know when she is going to find time to go to Voluntary Planning meetings but good luck to her.
MR. CHAIRMAN: She will be a very busy lady.
MR. DEVEAUX: I am sure she is now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?
MR. HENDSBEE: Just a quick clarification for our legal counsel with regard to Section 7, the board composition, it says that the minister may appoint a public servant to be secretary to the board and I am wondering if she may be filling that capacity or not.
MR. OLIVE: I would say no, not as a director.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. If that is the end of discussion we will call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
I believe that concludes the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions today.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, just a question. I apologize, I wasn't here at the last meeting but at the previous meeting before that I again raised the point that this committee passed a motion to have Alison Scott appear before this committee, in order to answer questions that committee members had at the time. That motion was duly passed by this committee and I requested that you update us as to why she had yet to appear before this committee. I don't recall there being any motion to rescind the previous motion and I am just curious as to whether this committee can pass motions to have people appear and they can just arbitrarily decide they don't want to show up or they are sending somebody else. What is the ruling in that regard?
Have you spoken to Alison Scott and why has she not yet appeared before this committee to answer the questions of the committee? In fact, I am sure you will recall that the previous chairman, himself, was the one who broke the tie in requesting she appear before us and the chairman voted in favour of her appearing. I am curious as to why she is not here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have reviewed the information in Hansard. My understanding was we were looking to have her come in to the committee to discuss who could retract a name from an agency, board or commission and how that was to be done. There was correspondence between her and Mr. Parent at that time, which seemed to satisfy the question that was the intent of that motion, so I hadn't followed up. I understood that it was taken care of and that the committee was content with the outcome.
MR. SAMSON: Well, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, when this committee passes a motion to have someone before it, I would expect that person would give this committee the courtesy of appearing before it. The two paragraph letter that came from Alison Scott saying according to me I feel you should accept this one's word or that one's word, I not only thought it offensive but silly, to say the least. We had serious questions about that appointment and we still have those questions.
I would request that you, as chairman, respect the decisions made by this committee before you arrived here and that you call upon Ms. Scott to come before this committee and not just simply send us a letter as to what she feels this committee should accept and what we shouldn't accept. Let her come before us and answer those questions. I believe the taxpayers of Nova Scotia pay her enough as it is and it is the least we can expect.
Hansard will clearly show that a motion was passed, supported by the chairman, to have her appear before this committee. That motion has never been rescinded and I would respectfully request that you uphold and respect that decision and immediately ask her to appear at our next meeting, as per the motion.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, respectfully to the member for Richmond, he indicated that unless there was a motion to rescind the original motion, he felt obligated to bring this to the committee for you, as chairman, to action it. We read the information, as did he and other members of the committee, in response to the original request. There was a very specific reason why that request was made in the first place.
I, as a member of this committee, feel quite confident that Ms. Scott has responded to the specific question asked, in writing, and that as a result there is no need - in my opinion and I am only one member - or therefore no other advantage, other than perhaps for reasons yet to be enunciated by the honourable member to have Alison Scott here.
If it is procedure - and I would ask the question first - to have that original motion rescinded and voted on, I would like to know if that is the proper procedure to go with and if it is, I would like to make that motion and have that original motion requesting Alison Scott to appear, rescinded. I would like to get an opinion first of whether or not that, in fact, can happen.
MR. HEBB: The members of the committee are free to make any motions they wish with respect to previous business.
MR. SAMSON: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, obviously you are not clear yourself of what the motion was to begin with. Clearly, I see where the member for Dartmouth South is going with this to try to make this go away. Your predecessor clearly voted in favour of a motion to have her appear before us. There was a serious question that has yet to be answered on that in my own opinion and I believe in the committee's opinion, it has not been addressed.
I raised this with you not last meeting but the previous meeting. Hansard will show that I requested you to speak to Ms. Scott and have an explanation as to why she had not appeared before us. That has not been done and you just indicated that you are not familiar with what the wording of the motion was, how it was passed, or what the discussion was. I would certainly hope - out of respect for this committee as the new chairman - that you would at least go back to Hansard and see what the discussion was before entertaining or voting on any motion from your colleague, the member for Dartmouth South, on this question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe a clarification before the point of order if you don't mind, Mr. Deveaux. I don't think I indicated that I wasn't aware of what the motion was. I think
I indicated that I had reviewed the motion and that I had believed that the correspondence that has come to this committee had satisfied the intent of that motion.
MR. DEVEAUX: Two points, Mr. Chairman. First of all I will ask is it anyone on the committee who can rescind a motion or is it only the people who made the original motion, or are there any particular rules? I guess I will ask counsel that, can anyone rescind the motion?
MR. HEBB: Anyone can rescind the motion . . .
MR. DEVEAUX: Move to rescind a motion.
MR. HEBB: . . . it wouldn't matter who the member was.
MR. DEVEAUX: It's not like the mover and seconder have to rescind their own motion?
MR. HEBB: It could be nine new members here on the committee.
MR. DEVEAUX: The second point is - with all due respect to the chairman - if the motion was to have Ms. Scott - I wasn't here for this so please forgive me if I am off on this - to answer questions, then her writing a letter clearly doesn't meet - I haven't read the motion - the motion's requirements.
I would hope the government, given the fact there has been a change in chairmen, would think long and hard before they would want to rescind such a motion for a lot of reasons; political and otherwise. I would hope this is something they would give a lot of thought to before they make motions to rescind motions that have already been passed by the majority of this committee, when this Party, the Tory Party, had a majority on that committee and the committee voted in favour of this. I would hope you think long and hard before rescinding that kind of motion. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion?
MR. SAMSON: Just a point, before my colleague jumps in here, Mr. Chairman. My question to you is, are you going to respect the vote taken by this committee and by the previous chairman, who voted in favour of that motion? I guess my question is, as the new chairman, are you going to show respect to the members of this committee and respect that particular motion and ask Ms. Scott to clearly come before this committee with respect to the motion that was passed? That is my question to you, as chairman, and I think we have the right to know exactly what your thinking is right now and what your intentions are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My intentions are to respect the wishes of this committee at a time when I happen to be part of it. There is a motion on the floor and my job as chairman is to run the meeting today. One thing I have to deal with is the motion that is on the floor. It seems to be in order, from everything that I gather. I know there is some discussion and some concern. We also do have legal counsel here who has explained that it is in order for anyone to rescind a motion. Therefore, after the discussion my intention is to put that motion to a vote.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, this issue has been bounced around so much that we seem to be forgetting why the original discussion was there in the first place. The original discussion was brought up, I think, by the honourable member for Richmond, but maybe perhaps somebody else, on the fact that whether or not a letter from the deputy minister was sufficient to have somebody acknowledge as not wanting to accept a board appointment. If that was the case and that letter went through Executive Council and Executive Council accepted it in preparing their recommendations for board appointments, whether or not that was the right process, nothing else, and that was the question that was placed.
[9:30 a.m.]
I can't sit here and fully understand or comprehend why some members of the committee would want to use that as a pole vault into the many other issues, because of the nature of the job of Alison Scott, would like to use this as some sort of a lever to get her here to talk about issues, quite frankly, that are not under the purview of the original inquiry. That is why I would suggest that her response, and she clearly outlined what the process was in her response . . .
MR. SAMSON: In her opinion. She did not highlight any sections . . .
MR. OLIVE: As in your opinion that it doesn't . . .
MR. SAMSON: She states her opinion was this. The point was that we would like to have her come before us so we can ask questions as to what that opinion is based on and show us where in the Act or what she is relying on, rather than a simple statement, I feel the committee should accept this as the process. That is unacceptable . . .
MR. OLIVE: She didn't actually say that.
MR. SAMSON: . . . for any civil servant to say that . . .
MR. OLIVE: That is your interpretation.
MR. SAMSON: . . . to committee members. No, that is what her letter says, I feel that the committee should accept this as being sufficient. That was unacceptable.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion on the floor. I would now like to call the question on the motion.
DR. SMITH: This is a real concern to me, that we are revisiting a matter that has the majority passage of a motion before this committee. I don't really care what Alison Scott thinks herself, that is not the issue and that was not the issue of this committee. The motion was passed. There was a grave concern about the function and matters surrounding the appointment of a very distinguished legal person in this province, Innis Christie. There is a letter out there, obviously, that has some information that members of this committee want to get. This is being blocked, and in fairness the chairman at that time voted in support of that motion and what he saw to be fairness. It didn't sit well with members of the government, so now there is quick damage control taking place. That is what we are doing here today. This is political mischief as far as I am concerned. When you ask someone to appear . . .
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Another opinion.
DR. SMITH: Another opinion, I would like that to be noted. Thank you, honourable member from southwestern Nova Scotia. (Interruptions)
I think this is just a bad precedent that we are setting here today, when a committee doesn't have full powers, perhaps, to subpoena someone. It is not their opinion that we are interested in, whether they should be coming or not. I think that is the issue, and we are losing sight of that. I will not be supporting any motion to revisit, re-table, re-whatever. We have a motion that has been duly passed before this committee, and we should adhere to it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye.
MR. SAMSON: Recorded vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A recorded vote has been called for.
[9:33 a.m.]
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Hendsbee Mr. Samson
Mr. Hurlburt Dr. Smith
Mr. Clarke Mr. Deveaux
Mr. Olive
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried. (Interruptions) Mr. Morash, yes.
MR. HENDSBEE: A motion to adjourn, sir.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn could I ask you a question? Are we going by Robert's Rules here? What is the procedure of this committee? Is it Robert's Rules? In the Rules of the House, is it that a chairman votes? (Interruptions)
MR. HEBB: There are three different possibilities, in various places. Our rules provide that the chairman votes and gets a second vote if there is a tie. In the House, the Speaker doesn't vote and only votes in the case of a tie. Under Robert's Rules of Order, the chairman votes and doesn't get a second vote. Robert's Rules don't apply here.
MR. HURLBURT: Okay, you answered my question. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have some committee business with regard to the next meeting dates. It looks like October 9th or 16th, tentative for Salter Street Films. It would be on agreement that we would have a subcommittee meeting after that meeting, if it was agreeable with all Parties. We will get back to people with the dates and times as soon as we can. It will be October 9th or 16th, if you can keep those dates open we will get back to you.
With that, we will entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. HENDSBEE: So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are adjourned. Thank you very much for coming.
[The committee adjourned at 9:35 a.m.]