MR. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. We will start the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. Perhaps I could ask that we go around the table and introduce ourselves, starting with Mr. Olive.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will move along to the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question as to the Hansard of the last meeting. When will we have the opportunity to check on that? I would like to review the appointments to District Health Authority No. 2. The Hansard is relevant to that. I know we don't start our meeting by going over the minutes of the last meeting, but when would that be appropriate? It is not a major issue, I would just like a point of clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is something perhaps Darlene can help us with.
DR. SMITH: We could do it when we discuss the district health authorities, if you wish. District Health Authority No. 2 is not down for today, but there is a matter relevant to the previous appointments that I would like clarification on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that something where we could go through today's book and then move directly into that once we have completed?
DR. SMITH: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that will be our first order of business after we go through today's appointments.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, moving ahead with our appointments. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Crop and Livestock Insurance Arbitration Board of Nova Scotia: Mark McCrea, chairman/member, and Dale Dunlop, member, I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: I have some discussion on this one, more out of sheer resignation to the way the government is moving on appointments. I noticed that Mr. Dunlop's appointment - now let's be clear, Mr. Dunlop is a lawyer who has been a member of the Bar for a long time, and I don't object to his appointment, but I did want to point out something about his application that I found kind of gruesomely funny. Dale Dunlop, of course, is the husband of Alison Scott, the Clerk of the Executive Council, the Secretary to the Cabinet. Alison Scott is really in charge of doing the administrative work of the appointment process. It's the Executive Council, of which she is in charge, that administers this whole program of appointments.
I noticed that Mr. Dunlop, her husband, writes the Executive Council office and writes Dear Sir/Madam, as if he doesn't know who he is writing to. I just think it's all part of this pretense, if you are going to have patronage at least admit it, at least have the courage of saying, yeah, we're doing it, and defend it on that level. This application just seems completely symptomatic, emblematic of what's wrong, where there's the pretense that it's all objective and anonymous. Dale Dunlop, let's be clear, is writing to his wife, and it says Dear Sir/Madam.
Having said that, I am going to be voting for this, but I just think it captures, very neatly, the problem that we are all facing here, the way this government is going with appointments. (Interruptions)
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, in other words, Mr. Steele is going to vote in favour of this, so that must mean that he thinks this person is totally qualified for the position that he has applied for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is something he mentioned in one of his first statements, yes.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. STEELE: I believe Mr. Dunlop is qualified. I believe there are a thousand other lawyers in Nova Scotia who are qualified. Seven people applied for the position. He is the one who has come to the top. Is he the best qualified? We have no idea. We have no idea
because this committee is not given the information that would enable it to make that judgement. Is he able to be an arbitrator? Sure he is, so am I, so are a thousand other lawyers in Nova Scotia.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of Mr. Steele, through you, if I may. Is he suggesting that there is any impropriety in the letter dated May 11th from Mr. Dunlop to the person or persons responsible for receiving this mail at the Executive Council's office?
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I've said what I've said and I don't think I need to add anything to it.
MR. OLIVE: So there is no impropriety. I think it is important to get that on the record. He won't put it on the record, obviously, and I can understand why . . .
MR. STEELE: Well, okay then, Mr. Chairman, I will. There is no impropriety, but there is a pretense. There is the pretense that this is all objective and anonymous. He is writing to his wife.
MR. OLIVE: How does he know his wife is going to open the envelope? You are going to make that assumption. It could be a clerk in the office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, to get back on track, although we have had an interesting sideline, that we should see if there is any other discussion on the two names put forward. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, perhaps we could call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I understand there were seven appointments, three, obviously, five deemed not to be worthy, if that is the proper term. Are there gender implications there on the re-advertisement, will that signify - probably the ad won't be able to say that, but there is a gender imbalance here on this committee of three. I am led to assume that five people didn't qualify and we are going to re-advertise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm assuming that's correct.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, Department of Community Services, Children and Family Services Act Advisory Committee: Robert Blair Campbell, Marjorie Johnson, Sumita Pillay and Russell Prime as members, and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I note that there are requirements in Section 88(2) of the Children and Family Services Act as to the composition of this committee. Just for the record I will note that the committee has to be composed of "(a) two persons whose children have been, are or may be in need of protective services; (b) a representative from an agency; (c) a representative of the Minister; (d) a legal aid lawyer; (e) two persons drawn from the cultural, racial or linguistic minority communities; and (f) such other persons, not exceeding three, as the Minister may determine."
I may have overlooked it but I didn't see any indication in the material we were given about which of these positions each of these individuals is being designated to fill. I just wonder if Mr. Chisholm as the mover or are you, Mr. Chairman, aware of which of those slots these people are being put into?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I can say that I am not. I am just looking through the information now to see if it is something I overlooked as well.
MR. STEELE: In the answer to the guidelines, it says for each of them that they satisfy Section 88(2) of the Children and Family Services Act, which means that they fit one of those categories, but it doesn't say anything more about which specific category. I think it would be useful information for this committee to have, although I will also say, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is a reason to hold up their appointment. But perhaps we could ask the minister to indicate which category these people are intended to fill, but I am not suggesting that that would be enough to actually hold up their appointments. Perhaps we could ask you to write to the minister and ask.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will see if the minister is willing to do that. Is there any further discussion? The question has been called.
DR. SMITH: They may not be, beyond that, if I could, willing to indicate who has been involved as a person in receipt of the care of the department, children under protection. So I think we have to be sensitive to that, but I agree with Graham. I think one like this, where the Act does clearly designate the spots, that we should have some indication of what they are falling under other than if the minister is satisfied.
MR. STEELE: That is a good point and if that is a reason why the identification hasn't been made, then I think it could be supplied in confidence to the committee. I do agree that it is something that we need to know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask what the advantage to this committee would be as long as we know that we meet Section 88(2)?
MR. STEELE: Basically, we don't know. We are being told that they do, but we have no way of verifying or of knowing which slots are empty for further appointments, if you know what I mean. This committee should never be in a position of just having to take the minister's word for it, there should be some way of objectively verifying that in fact the Act is being followed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can write to the minister and look forward to his response. Is there any other discussion? The question has been called.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Community Services, for the Round Table on Child Care, I move the name of Lyssa Clack as representative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Hearing none, we will call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education, Saint Mary's University Board of Governors, Larry Hood, member, and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we will call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health. I would like to make a motion but pre-empt it by saying that these are community appointments to the board. It has been a question in previous appointments, so it is important to note that. Under the Department of Health, Health Authority Districts, District No. 3, Annapolis Valley, Jane Farquharson and James C. Mosher, members. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? I will call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: District No. 6, Pictou County, Faye Blenkhorne as a member, and I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion? Call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under District No. 9, Capital District, I move the name of Garnet Burns as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion? Call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, IWK Health Centre, Dr. Noni MacDonald as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion? Call for the question.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, Review Board under the Hospitals Act, Dr. Alistair Munro, member, and I so move.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is so moved. Is there any discussion?
MR. STEELE: Members who have been to this committee before will know that in my mind there is a clear distinction between appointments to administrative-type bodies and those who are adjudicating the rights and liberties of individuals. I have said it before and I will say it again, this tribunal is one of the most important tribunals in Nova Scotia because unlike, I believe, almost any other tribunal except for its counterpart under the Criminal Code, this tribunal gets to decide whether people will have their liberty or not or whether they will be detained against their will or not. It is an extremely important board. It has to be 100 per cent, completely above politics and it has to be understood by all the people involved
in the mental health system, how it works, who these people are and how they got their positions.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote against this appointment and I want to be very clear about why. It is not because I am opposed to Dr. Munro. This is a reappointment. He has served the board and it is my understanding that he served the board well and I am sure he will continue to do so. However, there are two other people whose appointments expire at the same time, and they are Mr. Ian Tay Landry and Dr. Lawrence MacKinnon Buffet. I am advised by people in a position to know these things that these two people have served this board, this extremely important board, with great distinction. They have served it well. They have gained experience and I am proposing to vote against Dr. Munro's appointment not because I am opposed to him, but because I need an explanation for why those other people are not being reappointed, because reappointing or refusals to reappoint people are just as important to the proper functioning of this board as who is actually being put forward.
So I am hoping that one of the government members here today, you, Mr. Chairman, have an explanation for why only 1 of 3 people whose appointments are expiring is being put forward for reappointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I expect that you can appreciate that the minister responsible may have an explanation, but I certainly do not. The names are forwarded to us for approval or not to approve and that is where we are.
MR. STEELE: I want to make it clear that I am going to vote against this appointment in the absence of an explanation from the minister, and there may very well be a good explanation from the minister, as to why the other two people who served the board with distinction are not being reappointed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I would be interested to know whether Mr. Steele has information that would clearly indicate to him, or has clearly indicated to him and thus to us through his statement, that in fact the two individuals that he has mentioned are not now being considered or will ever be considered because I would like to know that too, if he has that kind of information.
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question.
MR. OLIVE: Well, I want to know, are you suggesting to this committee that Dr. Buffet and Mr. Landry are not being considered at all? Is this what you are saying? Is this your reason for not voting for a highly-qualified, fully-experienced doctor? It doesn't make sense to me unless you have some information.
MR. STEELE: Let me explain what it is then. It is just the information that is on the page that we all have here. Dr. Buffet, who is also an extremely well-qualified and capable psychiatrist, his appointment expires today. That means that tomorrow, he is no longer a member of this board. His name is not in the book so he is off the board as of midnight tonight.
MR. OLIVE: I would suggest, Mr. Steele, that if you go through this book and look at the similar lists of board members, you are going to find a number in previous meetings in exactly the same situation, but there is no implication because they are not being appointed at the same time as somebody else that for some reason they are no longer qualified or not acceptable to the government or to the facilities. In this case, the Psychiatric Facilities Review Board. You are making a huge assumption and to the detriment of a very highly qualified doctor who is a reappointment to a board you admit he has served well. So for you to grandstand, to make some issue out of nothing to the detriment of putting a vote in in a positive sense for Dr. Munro is unconscionable. I think it is an insult to Dr. Munro and I don't understand where you are coming from with it, quite frankly.
As I said, you can go through any one of these books that we have been looking at for the last two years and you will find a similar situation. Today, all of a sudden, you think it is an issue that you would like to use to vote against somebody. If you don't want to vote for Dr. Munro, tell us why you don't want to vote for him. Don't make up a reason and make it sound like you have a reason because you don't have a reason. It is purely speculation on your part.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?
MR. JOHN HOLM: He knows your mind better than you do obviously.
MR. STEELE: I think my problem with this is precisely because I'm not prepared to make assumptions. There are three people whose appointments expire today. One is being put forward for reappointment and I am simply looking for an explanation from the minister responsible as to why one person is being picked out. If there is a good explanation, I'll accept it, but I'm not willing to assume that there is one until I hear what it is.
MR. OLIVE: Tell us why you don't like Dr. Munro. Put it on the table. Don't beat around the bush.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Might I suggest that in future meetings, if something like this comes up, we do get the books, I think, seven days previous. If you have an issue like that and you get it forwarded to me, I will try to get an answer prior to the meeting if possible and we may be able to take care of some of your issues prior to our meeting.
MR. STEELE: I became aware of this situation yesterday afternoon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If something like that happens and you do become aware of it a little earlier, we would certainly try to get an answer for you and help you with your decision making.
MR. STEELE: I've said it before, but for Mr. Olive's benefit I will say it again, I am not opposed to Dr. Munro who has served the board with distinction. What I am opposed to is the idea that we should choose one out of the three with no explanation forthcoming from the minister. So the alternative which I would like to propose, and I hereby move, is that the appointment to this particular board be deferred until the next meeting of the Human Resources Committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we already have a motion on the table.
MR. OLIVE: We have a motion on the floor.
MR. STEELE: Then, Mr. Olive, let's be very clear, the reason that I'm going to vote against your motion is because I think this ought to be deferred and I hope that you understand that.
MR. OLIVE: I hope Dr. Munro understands what your motives are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? If there is no other discussion, we'll call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
DR. SMITH: Just, if I could, I am somewhat in support of Mr. Steele. There are two groups. There is the Psychiatric Facilities Review Board and then there's another group as well involved with similar - I just forget the name now (Interruption) Yes, the Criminal Code Review Board and we tend to get appointments late in an emergency. I think it would be a notice that, would we be to request the minister responsible, can we expect in a short period of time appointments to these two vacancies that will fall vacant this evening because we have been asked before by these types of committees in an urgent matter.
I think on one occasion we had to have a special meeting and they tend to delay them and if it is just oversight, fine. If there are some other political initiatives on the go, then it might be nice to know that, but I am not indicating that that is so. I think these are very important and they have to do with the rights of individuals there. They're far different than most other committees that we're dealing with and I think it would be nice to know if they have somebody in the works to come so that we're not all of a sudden getting a request at the last minute. I am somewhat sympathetic to what Mr. Steele has said in that this is an
important committee. It should be up to date and we should be dealing with two other appointments here today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can check to ensure that things are ongoing, that these vacancies get filled as soon as possible because we realize they certainly are important. Sometimes just procedure slows things down, but I expect that's the problem today.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just to follow on Dr. Smith's comment. I think it's important that there not be an impression left as a result of that statement and those of Mr. Steele that this board, in fact, is short. There are still eight members active on this board, notwithstanding there are a couple more appointments that have to be made. It's important not to leave the impression, I believe, and I don't think Dr. Smith is doing that.
I just want to clarify the fact that this board actually does have eight people. It is not short. The chance of there being a midnight phone call and a conference call to staff is highly unlikely because there are eight active members on the board. I do respect Dr. Smith's comment, but I think it is important not to leave the impression with the public that the board is short-staffed and could cause us a problem down the road.
DR. SMITH: I accept those comments. I know most of these people personally. The mix of this board is extremely important and they're all equal, but some are more equal than others. Lawrence Buffet and Alistair Munro have certain talents that others don't and all in their own way. Others are in the legal profession, but I think from the psychiatric input, people like Lawrence Buffet, who has been there for a long period of time, trained in the best institutions in Canada, would be a loss to the board. So I think you need the mix as well as the quorum in these matters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Police Review Board of Nova Scotia, I would so move Brian S. Creighton as chair and member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I guess I would like to start with a question about this one. It appears from the material I have in front of me that the proposed appointment is for two months. I just wanted to make sure that that was correct and not a typo. If it is correct, is anybody aware of the reason why the appointment is for only two months?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It's an extension and that is correct and I'm not aware of the reasons for the extension.
MR. STEELE: In that case I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman. The Police Review Board is among that small group of boards that I have been talking about that are so extremely important to the administration of justice in the province. This is the final level of hearing and appeal for all matters involving the police and Mr. Creighton's letter, I think, lays out much better than I ever could why the Police Review Board is so important. There's a letter in our material dated May 1, 2001, where he is requesting a reappointment and he explains exactly what the Police Review Board does and the kind of qualities that are needed for someone to serve on this board.
Mr. Creighton is a lawyer in Amherst. He has served the board with distinction, I believe. I believe he ought to be reappointed for a longer term. He also happens to be a Liberal. How do I know that?
DR. SMITH: In Amherst? (Laughter)
MR. STEELE: And how do I know that? Well, I spoke to Mr. Creighton yesterday because I was concerned when I saw that the appointment was for only two months and I asked him if he was aware why he was being reappointed for only two months. This was the first he had heard of it. He's actually very disappointed. He doesn't understand it. He says that he's not sure that he's even going to accept this appointment.
DR. SMITH: Innis Christie, of course, did the same thing.
MR. STEELE: Yes, you get offered a very short period and there's no real explanation. Now, let's be very clear. The Police Review Board has a great deal of work to do right now. I also got a call yesterday from Garry Mumford of the Nova Scotia Police Commission and they do all the administrative work for the Police Review Board. He heard about this and he said he didn't understand, because the Police Review Board has so much work to do and are experienced here. This is not an exact quote, but the gist of what he was saying was, our experienced chairman is being offered a two month appointment and he can't do the work that needs to be done in two months.
[9:30 a.m.]
Now, unlike the last board, this is a board that is not fully staffed. It has one member and one alternate member and the one full-time member some of you will remember was something that I objected to at the time because it is such an important board and we had so little information about Mr. McIntosh. Well, it was only after the meeting where Mr. McIntosh was appointed that the Bridgewater Bulletin reported that he was the Minister of Justice's official agent in the last election and that he donated what in provincial politics is a fairly substantial amount of money to the Minister of Justice. That doesn't disqualify him from serving, but it raises red flags about what's going on here, because let's be very clear about what the Police Review Board does.
The Police Review Board has occasion to review the policies of the Department of Justice on policing and public safety. So you have the Minister of Justice's official agent holding hearings and receiving evidence potentially from the Minister of Justice himself and then passing judgement on whether the Minister of Justice and his department are doing a good job. Mr. McIntosh isn't disqualified from serving on the board, but there are issues when you have somebody so closely tied to the Minister of Justice on the board and right now he is the single solitary member of this board. Meanwhile, you have this experienced chairman, Mr. Creighton, who's being offered an extension of two months. He says he's not even sure he is going to accept it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think for the purposes of today's meeting, we are talking about Mr. Creighton.
MR. STEELE: Okay, but I want to put this all in context about the Police Review Board because I'm not sure that the government members on this committee understand how important this Police Review Board is. They're about to hold four hearings on police officers who have been dismissed, on whether they should get their jobs back. They just finished doing the hearing and the report on the strip searches at the rave. They have just finished issuing the report on the John MacMullen case up in Cape Breton and the Citizens in Action. That's what the Police Review Board does. This is pretty darn important stuff and right now the only member of the board is the Minister of Justice's official agent and Mr. Creighton who as an experienced, capable member, is being offered a two month extension that he's not even sure he's going to accept.
So I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying - and I know Mr. Olive is going to have trouble with this so I will try to say it as clearly as I can - I am going to vote against this appointment, but not because I'm opposed to Mr. Creighton. I believe he should be offered the full one to three year extension that would be normal for someone in his position. At the very least, if you're going to get rid of him, there should be an extension so that he can properly train his successor, but this is an insult to Mr. Creighton. It's an insult to the Police Review Board to offer him a two month extension. So I am going to vote against it because I believe he deserves more respect than this proposed appointment gives him.
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 Department of Tourism and Culture, Art Gallery of Nova Scotia Board of Governors, I move the following names and positions: Mervyn C. Russell as honorary governor; and Stephen Aftanas, Constance M. Darby and Charlotte Wilson-Hammond as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I so move for the Boxing Authority of Nova Scotia: Hubert E. Earle, Referee-in-Chief and adviser; and Glen Edwards, Francis 'Rocky' MacDougall and Wayne G. Reynolds as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That concludes the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions for today. I believe we said the next order of business would be Dr. Smith's issue with regard to the appointments to District Health Authority No. 2.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm referring to Hansard dated September 25th, Page 4, and Mr. Olive indicates that Donald Bower as chair and member. Then there is another person as a member and that, in fact, Mr. Bower is a community appointment. These are small points, but there are some things happening in that area regarding appointments that I will try to highlight my concerns.
It is our understanding from the printout we have for District Health Authority No. 2 that Mr. Ronald Horrocks was the chair. He was a ministerial appointment. We don't have legal counsel today, but it's my understanding that the minister appoints the chair. It's generally a ministerial appointment, although I suppose that doesn't have to be. I would like a point of clarification as to who the chairman is of District Health Authority No. 2; is it Mr. Bower who is a community board appointment, as indicated by Mr. Olive on Page 4 of Hansard, September 25th, or what the printout says that we have of the membership of that board, that Mr. Bower is not down as chairman? Maybe that is something that can't be answered now, but I would like to have some clarification on that.
It's not a criticism of Mr. Olive, who brought that forward, but I would like clarification as to whether the chairs of the boards are ministerial appointments, if that is how the minister or the department sees those appointments, in fact if they are, and who is.
My other concern is also representation in that area. I visited the area the other week and there was a ministerial appointment in Shelburne area that has not been reappointed. If you look at the membership, they are a ministerial appointment short in the Shelburne area; there are five appointments on that board from Yarmouth County, five are from Digby County and two are from Shelburne County. They are concerned about their area being
underrepresented. Anne E. Smith was a ministerial appointment in the Shelburne area and she has not been reappointed and that, I gather, is open at this time.
I know it's not been our way to revisit, but I would like some clarification on that and if there is a commitment to address the disparity of - as much as you try you can't take regional influence out of these appointments when push comes to shove if Yarmouth and Digby are competing in any way for resources against Shelburne. This area is running a deficit of maybe $13 million, I hear - we will know eventually - and I am concerned that this area is lacking representation.
The reason I am bringing this forward as well, I hope that this is not payback for the MLA in that area for voting against Bill No. 68, in not going with the government. There is some indication in that community that he is not receiving his recognition. We have MLA backbenchers making announcements all around this province and he's at functions like the Shelburne County Exhibition and his presence is not even recognized when somebody comes in to do the opening and he's not there. I am concerned that this is an indication that maybe Shelburne County is paying the price for having an MLA that voted against Bill No. 68. I will be quite frank, this is a political talk I am having here now.
I am concerned about the membership of the board. I want to be clear who is chairman of the board and who appointed that person, but also to serve notice that I will be watching this area for the representation on this board. These are important times and I think they should be adequately represented and they are certainly not being represented now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. We will look into that first issue and get back to you with clarification.
DR. SMITH: I was hoping Mr. Hebb might be here this morning to explain some of the appointment process and how he would interpret that.
MR. HOLM: Will you be getting back to Dr. Smith or to the whole committee?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will get back to the whole committee. I will always get back to the whole committee.
MR. HOLM: That's what I understood, but I just wanted clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I probably need a lot of that as we go through this.
Any other committee business? If not, we can move to the agenda and we have the scheduling of cultural witnesses and that would be Salter Street Films, new media and intellectual property. I know that we have been very difficult to arrange for Darlene and I
guess I apologize. We do have some meeting dates that we would try to get Salter Street in for or . . .
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): Actually, the meeting dates that are bolded here are the next meeting dates for the Human Resources Committee, the ABC process, because of the holiday schedule and whatnot coming up. The actual next meeting was December 27th, but for the Christmas holidays - this is just a suggestion - maybe December 18th because the next week is Christmas. I thought maybe that would be acceptable for the committee to meet on December 18th. Or is there another closer day? Do you want to move it up a little closer to the early part of December?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that something that perhaps you could check with the secretary of the Executive Council just to see if they can do their paperwork and have the information to us?
MRS. HENRY: And then get back with a firmer date?
MR. CHAIRMAN: If so, that would be an acceptable date. I think we're all in agreement, we would like to do that as early as possible as long as we have some information to approve.
MRS. HENRY: Then January 29, 2002, you go back to your regular schedule, which is the last Tuesday of the month.
With Salter Street and the intellectual property witnesses, from what I understand previously, this committee has been trying to get those people in and they've been dancing around the issue of dates. I was just wondering how receptive this committee is to meeting back-to-back, if they really wanted these witnesses in, and when do you want to actually start bringing them in? Do you want me to call them in for December, then meet again on ABCs the next week, or do you want me to try to hook that up for January and try to firm it up?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any suggestions or discussion from the floor as to getting Salter Street in, time frame wise? (Interruptions)
MRS. HENRY: From what I understand previous to this, they have had dates from last spring or something, you guys were trying to get them in. Speaking with the other clerk of the committee, there were dates set and then all of a sudden they were cancelled, and things of that nature.
MR. HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, I move that Darlene tries to arrange a meeting some time after the first of the year. We have the House going in, as you know, on Thursday, and we are all going to have full agendas, so maybe we could leave it until after January.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreed?
It is agreed. Thank you very much.
The last issue I see on here is binders versus prong fasteners.
MRS. HENRY: Yes, we have a little issue on that. It is really a non-issue to me, but it was brought up that (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: On a point of clarification, did you say thongs? (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe with your background you are more familiar with those than I am, but no. (Interruptions)
MRS. HENRY: Some people wanted these ABCs put in binder form, which would lead to quite an expense, other than what we are used to using now. In speaking and getting advice, it was said that I should bring this before the committee because you have to vote on whether you want to do binders or fasteners. (Interruptions)
MR. HOLM: I move we stick with these.
MRS. HENRY: Stick with these? Okay, that's fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Stick with these? Done.
MR. HOLM: Unless all the binders are going to be returned by the MLAs.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think there are enough binders around each caucus office now to accommodate any paperwork that comes out.
Is there any further business? Hearing none, we will adjourn. We do have subcommittee after this, so some are excused some are not. If you are on the Subcommittee on Human Resources you need to stay.
[The committee adjourned at 9:44 a.m.]