MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we will begin this meeting of the Human Resources Committee. If we may call it to order and start by introducing ourselves. Perhaps we will start with you, Richard.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. As you will notice, there are two pieces of correspondence that have just been passed out to you and I will deal with them perhaps now, if there are no problems from the committee's point of view. One has to do with the appointment to the Regional Assessment Appeal Court and it is from Alison Scott advising us that Ms. Tara Miller has requested that her name be withdrawn from consideration for appointments to the Regional Assessment Appeal Court. So her name is in the book but she will be withdrawn for today's proceedings.
The second piece of correspondence is addressed to me from Michael Baker. If we can give some time for people to review that, if they would like. It is in respect to the correspondence that Mr. Steele had sent through to the committee. Maybe I will just give everybody a minute or two to take a look at it.
Has everyone had time to review the letter from Mike Baker?
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, would you like to deal with this item of business now or at the conclusion of our consideration of the appointment book?
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Do it now and get it over with.
MR. STEELE: Because I know that everybody around the table is aware of what these two pieces of paper say but, Mr. Chairman, for the record, for those who don't have these pieces of correspondence in front of them, I would like to explain, by way of background, exactly what they are.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MR. STEELE: I had given notice to members of the committee that I intended to make a motion today and the text of the motion, which I will no longer be making, was going to be as follows:
Be it resolved that the chair write to the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Michael Baker, to invite him to appear before the Human Resources Committee to outline the government's plans for implementation of the terms of the settlement agreement reached with the Human Rights Commission and Professor Archie Kaiser which was released publicly on Wednesday, January 23, 2002.
I had also copied that letter to the Minister of Justice and had spoken to him privately as well to explain what was behind the motion. It was because I had copied the letter to the minister that we have his correspondence, which is undated, but which was circulated to members of the committee this morning. If I could beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, for Hansard, I wouldn't mind just reading that letter. It is relatively short.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please go ahead.
MR. STEELE: It is addressed to you, Mr. Chairman. It says:
"Dear Kerry:
Please extend my thanks to the members of the Human Resources Committee for their interest and invitation to appear regarding the terms of the Kaiser settlement. While the terms of the settlement were recently released, I believe it would be premature to discuss plans for implementation before the committee at this time.
A new selection and recruitment process will mean new requirements for the selection of individuals who wish to serve on agencies, boards and commissions. Staff will be required to set out the mandate, criteria and required qualifications for those wishing to serve on agencies, boards and commissions. We are in the process of implementing the new system, and I believe we should first ensure that sound practices are in place before we begin to communicate how the new system will operate. This process is too
important to risk confusion and misunderstanding as to how interested individuals will be selected to serve.
This government is committed to the continued reform of the selection process for agencies, boards and commissions. Our objective is clear. It is vital the process to achieve that objective be equally apparent. I of course will be providing further information to your committee as this process unfolds.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Baker, Q.C."
So, in light of that letter, Mr. Chairman, it is apparent to me that if I were to make the motion that I had previously read that it would not be accepted. It's sort of being discouraged by the Minister of Justice. Although, I would like to say that I'm a little bit disappointed because what I read in the minister's letter is that the new process that will be required as a result of the Kaiser settlement will be formulated behind closed doors and when the government is good and ready to tell the public what the new process is going to be, they will announce it.
What I was hoping for, and my motivation for proposing that motion, was that we could bring the minister here and actually have a discussion, have a dialogue to talk about what the issues are and what some of the options are for dealing with it. But one of the unfortunate parts of the Kaiser settlement is that the Human Resources Committee has again been shunted off to the side. We are going to have no greater role than we do now, which is to act as a rubber stamp for appointments that are produced by another process developed somewhere else. So, that's the background to this correspondence but in light of the minister's letter, I will not be making that motion now. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for explaining thoroughly to the committee. With that, we can move along to appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Mr. Chairman, just before leaving this matter. I'm certainly not surprised that the minister is not coming, because this has been the wish of the government to sweep this under the carpet. I, as a member of this committee and the Liberal caucus, just want to be on the record here this morning that we are extremely disappointed that this did not go before a full hearing. There had been an earlier hearing when there were allegations relative to Party affiliation that Mr. Kaiser made and the report from Mr. William Grant exonerated Mr. Gillis and Bob MacKay and I think Premier Savage, that this matter of Mr. Kaiser's political affiliation and appointment never came to P & P or it never came to the Cabinet. As a member of that government, I'm extremely disappointed that this hearing did not go forward.
It is my personal belief, and this is certainly not shared by my colleague or our caucus, that this whole thing has been dealt with in a manner by this government to keep things quiet. We saw the level that this government was prepared to go to in patronage appointments with the Liquor Commission, the appointments prior to Christmas. They caught a lot of flak in the media, cartoons, everything else, and they just ran for cover and in some way have arranged that this will not go forward in a hearing. I am extremely disappointed as a member of the Legislature that this did not go forward.
This was not a matter of Mr. Kaiser's political affiliation whatsoever, professional people had made recommendations relative to his appointment to members and it was felt at that time that there were better qualified people. That's where it was. It had nothing to do at all with political appointments. There were people on those boards when I was involved with appointments over the years that we knew were strong supporters of the Tory Party and others who were appointed and reappointed.
I just want to go on record here this morning. This may be the only time I get a chance to comment here this morning that I am extremely disappointed that this government, in some way, has prevented this to go forward or has reached a settlement or has agreed to
reach a settlement. I think it is wrong. It is wrong-headed and we should have had a hearing and had this in the open. This was not about political affiliation in the appointment of Mr. Kaiser.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Yes, sir.
MR. JOHN HOLM: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I am not going to try to go into the past and into the Kaiser situation or past practices. I think the verdict is already in, at least in the public's mind. The minister talks about the fact that the government is preparing a process: they want to have sound practices; and, presumably, they want to have the appointment process being done in a transparent fashion. I also am disappointed that the minister is unwilling to appear before us, before this committee, however, I am a little surprised if I am getting a sense that this committee itself doesn't wish to be involved somehow in how that process is going to be developed, what practices will be involved.
If this is, in fact, to be a transparent process that is going to have the public confidence, then I think that at a bare minimum there should be some kind of a way to involve committee members in devising the system for the appointment process. Having something, as my colleague says, being prepared by the government behind closed doors and then just presented to this committee as a fait accompli - I guess not only to this committee but to the people of the province - that in itself would cause people to be rightly skeptical about the fairness of such a process.
I would leave it out to the committee members that maybe this committee might wish to correspond with the minister or with the government to indicate that in some formalized way this committee would like to be involved in developing the rules and the processes for such appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess building on that, one of the things we were pleased to see was the government indicating that they were going to go down the road of establishing which boards, agencies and commissions were quasi-judicial and which were more of a type of policy board and recommendations to the different departments and to government. That is something that we have raised concerns about in the past, that these quasi-judicial appointments should be held to certainly a higher standard than the average policy-type board. I think even the NDP and the member for Halifax Needham has stated on several occasions that the Savage Government had gone a long way to removing the political process out of the quasi-judicial-type boards, especially those that heard appeals and made important decisions that affected the lives of Nova Scotians.
At the same time, I think this committee has been put in place with the purpose of trying to assist in any which way possible with this. I think at the end of the day, the government has been elected by the majority of Nova Scotians and we respect that, they will have to determine at the end of the day how they deal with this, but I would certainly recommend and I would make a motion that the Subcommittee on Human Resources, which I believe is only three or four members, much smaller than this - a much more manageable group some might even argue - be asked to meet with the minister and whatever staff he has working on this as a means of being able to discuss which boards and agencies are going to fall under this quasi-judicial role, which will simply fall under policy and just a means of being able to communicate with the minister, make some suggestions and possibly actually try to assist in this process.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would move the motion that the Subcommittee on Human Resources meet with the Minister of Justice and the staff that he has working on this in order to discuss the implementation of a new policy for appointments to the Human Resources Committee. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Mr. Olive.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, as a member of that subcommittee, I just refer back to Minister Baker's letter which, in his very last sentence says, "I of course will be providing further information to your committee as this process unfolds." That satisfies me that at an appropriate time, when the process is fully developed, the minister will be providing the information to Human Resources for review by this all-Party committee and at that point I am sure that there will be some enquiries as to what is in the final package.
I am fully prepared to wait for that report. I think it is only fair that we do that. I go back to the statements of both Dr. Smith and Mr. Samson that way back in 1993, 1994, Dr. Savage, the Premier of the day, did try to clean this process up but, quite frankly, if he had we may not be where we are today, where we, in fact, have to develop and, contrary to what some people may wish to believe, had already started the process, as a result of previous meetings here, of developing qualifications and standards for these quasi-judicial boards.
[9:15 a.m.]
The process was ongoing, it is now going to be completed, was included in the settlement in the Kaiser situation, and I believe we should allow that to continue so that we are presented with a complete package and not be put through this situation of questioning every sentence and every line as it comes forward from Minister Baker. I'm quite satisfied that this program will be developed in the best interests of not only all members of this committee but of the general public, and that we should wait until we see the final package before we start picking it apart before it's even finished. Those are my comments, anyway, regarding Mr. Samson's motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I would just point out that this is a committee of the Legislature, not of the government. Mr. Baker, in his letter, nowhere indicates any interest in a willingness to obtain input from this committee. Instead, as Mr. Olive is saying, we should be waiting for the final report to come out before we start to pick it apart, it would advisable or helpful, I would suggest, if we support Mr. Samson's proposal that maybe this committee would be able to have some input at the front end so that there would be no need for trying to pick out the final report that would come forward from the minister, as having been prepared without any input and prepared behind closed doors.
I think having the input at the front end, hopefully, might be able to resolve some of those difficulties that could occur. I see absolutely no reason and I don't understand, quite honestly, why members of this committee would be hesitant to support the motion put forward, that's on the floor for consideration, because all it is asking for is an opportunity to meet, at the front end, to have some input in devising processes and practices in determining which boards and commissions fall into which categories. I think that's a responsibility of this committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I have a question for the proposer of the motion, just by way of clarification. The subcommittee has been meeting in camera, the idea being that that would facilitate the free-flow discussion, and that it's only when the subcommittee reports back to
the full committee that it would be public. In your motion, are you contemplating that this work would also be done in camera?
MR. SAMSON: I think that's something that should be determined by the subcommittee itself. I don't think we need to determine that right now. What I would like to see is that the subcommittee could at least meet with the minister. Now there's mention here of some sort of staff, well, who are these staff? Are they regular Civil Service staff, are they political staff? We don't even know that. Who is sitting around the table to have these discussions or to contemplate which agencies fall under what categories? I don't want to get into too many specifics at this point. What I would like to see is a face-to-face meeting, and at least know who is having these discussions, and see what suggestions can be made.
On a further point, I know that the member for Dartmouth South has tremendous and extreme confidence in his colleagues and in his government, that whatever decision they make he certainly will say is the best possible decision. I would just simply remind him that we don't expect any system to be absolutely perfect, but I would just remind the member and his colleagues of how many times we've had names come before this committee that they've had to withdraw because of the fact that they should have never come before us in the first place. I give you, for an example, appointing municipal councillors to the Social Assistance Appeal Courts or to the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts. We even had an appointment coming from an MLA's constituency assistant that was going to be dealing with an appeals process, that had to be withdrawn.
I think there's a role here that the committee plays, that this government - unlike what the member for Dartmouth South might believe - is not perfect, and that the whole intention here is simply to be able to provide some advice, maybe provide some suggestions, and hope at the end of the day that this is a better system and, God help us, if we could walk in here saying that all three Parties have agreed to the system that's being brought in here. I think this is an opportunity, and one that should be taken up. The exact details of how it will work, I'm sure the subcommittee can establish that once they get to meet with our wonderful Minister of Justice.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I could just speak to the motion. I want to compliment the member for Dartmouth South, my colleague. Obviously he's had a very enlightening and rejuvenating holiday season, because prior to Christmas he was defending, strongly - and not doing a bad job of it under the difficult circumstances - his government's position. Now, this morning, if you've noticed, he said the process needs fixing, and we agree. Over in our caucus we say that the Tories, over this Christmas season, regarding patronage appointments, have been scared straight. They have been scared to the point - I don't believe that many of them realized how far back to the old system of patronage - the Liquor Commission really opened their eyes.
I'm sure there are many members of that caucus who were amazed at the extent this government had gone.
MR. HOLM: Shamed.
DR. SMITH: Shamed. We say they're scared straight. I would like to compliment the member for Dartmouth South this morning. He recognizes, and said here today, that this process needs fixing. That's why I would be in favour, I'm a member of that subcommittee. I think we could look at those committees. The Psychiatric Facilities Review Board and the Criminal Code Review Board, for instance, are two extremely important committees. You must listen to professional people who have experience in those matters, as a government. I think it's very important. What other boards are there that should have tighter scrutiny? I think it would be up to the subcommittee to look at all of the committees to see which ones should be pulled off to the side and really dealt with in a quasi-judicial way and have some agreement on those, that there would be no political interference or any hint of patronage.
I think we would be doing the system a favour, the system has come a long way from the days of Premier Savage. It needs some retuning right now. We have an opportunity. If we go back the other way and go back to where it was before Christmas, then shame on all of us because we've let the system down and we've let Nova Scotians down. We're threatening lives when these committees that we're talking about this morning, the Criminal Code and health related boards, these are extremely important boards, not only to the people who are involved with the law or the hospital system and are being detained there, but also for all Nova Scotians.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, you know I can't let that go.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know you can't let that go.
MR. OLIVE: The honourable member for Dartmouth East, who is quite an outstanding parliamentarian, his skills as a doctor certainly allow him to dissect statements and pull out that which is most applicable to the argument he's trying to make. That's basically what he just did. If I could just, on a point of clarification for the honourable member for Dartmouth East, what I said was, and for the purpose of clarifying it for the committee, that this process, regarding the quasi-judicial boards, was ongoing prior to this last couple of weeks and the issue of Kaiser and the Human Rights Commission. It was a result, and the member for Richmond is quite right, that this is a place where there is input and expected input from all sides, from all Parties on this committee, and there has been, and you can go back in Hansard and you will find occasions where there have been questions from all three Parties on the quasi-judicial boards and appointments and the qualifications.
The government recognized that well over a year ago, if not more, and has been coming up with a proposal. It was probably a good job that they were working on it, because it was very easy to incorporate that proposal into what eventually became the process now put in place as a result of the Kaiser settlement. It's nice to get thank-yous and congratulations from the member for Dartmouth East, and I'll certainly copy that Hansard and frame it.
The fact is this process was ongoing, that the Liberals had the opportunity in 1993-94 to correct this problem and didn't. The quasi-judicial boards were the same boards in 1993 as they are in 2002. While Dr. Smith says that this process has come a long way, as I said previously - which he neglected to say - if, in fact, these quasi-judicial boards, 15 or 16 of them, had been pulled out back in 1993-94, this discussion wouldn't even be ongoing. So just to clarify that, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the kudos from the member for Dartmouth East and that is all I have to say on that matter. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Very briefly, we can spend quite a bit of time going back and forth throwing stones at each other. Certainly both the current and former governments have plenty of stones they can throw at each other and we have stones we can throw at them all. However, the reality is that is in the past and now we are talking about developing a process that will move forward.
Mr. Olive and the member for Dartmouth East in their comments said it was a good thing that the government was working on something because they were very quickly able to implement a process that they had been working on as a result of the Kaiser decision. To the best of my knowledge, that process has not yet been implemented but they are talking about developing exactly the kinds of processes and so on that will be implemented and followed in the future.
I haven't heard from any member of the government benches yet - other than from Mr. Olive who said we should be simply waiting for the minister to table his report and his additional information - why it would not be a good idea for the subcommittee to meet with the minister and with the appropriate staff to try to have some input into developing processes and practices determining which ones fit into which category.
My colleague had asked the question about whether or not that would be in camera or not. Well, my knowledge of the way committees work - although I am not a regular member of this committee, based on past experience - is that subcommittees generally do meet, yes, in private to have their discussions. Those committees then do report back to the committee as a whole. Then the deliberations of that committee are, in effect, made public by reporting back to the committee as a whole.
I have not heard one single argument yet as to why members of this committee would not feel it would be advisable for this legislative committee - it is a committee of the Legislature, not of government - to meet with the minister and appropriate officials to try to have some input into devising a system and process that would work better for Nova Scotians in the future. Let's forget about the past, let's look forward and try to figure out how a system will be devised that will eliminate, hopefully all or almost all of the controversies and conflicts that have existed in the past. I think that is a goal that everybody supposedly wants to achieve, so why not move forward and at least make the request that the committee have the opportunity to meet?
MR. OLIVE: John, wouldn't you want to see a course outline before you start rewriting the book? You are a teacher.
MR. HOLM: As a former teacher, what I would have liked to have seen at that time is to have the opportunity to have input into that course outline before the final program is developed. By having input into it, that doesn't mean you are going to get your way but you are at least having some input and having the opportunity to be heard about what is and isn't important.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion on the motion on the floor? Hearing none we will call for the question.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I have another motion I would like to make. I would like to make the following motion, please: Be it resolved that the Human Resources Committee thank Professor Archie Kaiser for his perseverance in pursuing for seven years his human rights complaint and helping to achieve real improvements to the public appointment process in Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I will not be supporting this motion for the reasons that I have said initially, we wanted this process to go forward and have a hearing. There had been a report from the Human Rights Commission by Mr. William Grant that found there was no
evidence of political interference or any type of patronage. I think this has gotten far more attention than it has warranted. As far as I am concerned, it is a non-issue. I think those appointments that had taken place over the years during and since that time have indicated that Party affiliation was not an issue, professional people recommended against the appointment and it was not a matter of P&P and Cabinet. I think this was well-known by the person bringing forward this issue and the charges. I will not be supporting this motion.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, just to piggyback somewhat on Dr. Smith's comments, I won't be supporting this motion either. I believe that the process of review of the quasi-judicial boards and the overall appointment process is not a direct result of Mr. Kaiser. It is a direct result of the efforts of members of this committee in bringing issues on an ongoing basis before the committee and that was recognized by the government. I would just like to say that I will not be supporting the motion either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I just can't resist saying I am shocked and appalled at the position taken by the two members of the Liberatory Parties but I am not surprised, but disappointed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: With reference to what Dr. Smith just said, he said twice this morning that William Grant issued a report apparently finding no basis in Professor Kaiser's complaint. If that is the case that is completely unknown to the public and I just wonder if Dr. Smith would care to share with the committee that report or what he knows about it, since he seems intent this morning on giving evidence about his view of the Kaiser complaint. So I would like to ask Dr. Smith, what does he know about this report, what did it say and when will he release it?
MR. OLIVE: That is out of order.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, he stated that as a reason for opposing the motion so I am asking him to elaborate on his reasons for opposing the motion?
MR. OLIVE: You don't have to answer that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will leave that with Dr. Smith as to whether he would like to respond or not.
DR. SMITH: I can provide that information to the committee and I will do that at a later time. I don't have it with me this morning, it is communications that I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Any further discussion of the motion on the floor? I will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is defeated.
With that we will move on to appointments, the first being the Department of Health in the book before you.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, on a question. I missed the last meeting and I went through Hansard but didn't see anything in it. Has the appointment of Charles Cox been revoked yet by this committee or is that still standing as an appointment of this committee? Just for your recollection, he is a municipal councillor from Truro who was appointed to the Regional Assessment Appeals Court. As you would be aware, we had already gotten an opinion letter from Justice Merlin Nunn who said that municipal councillors should not be appointed to these types of appeal courts, as we had another appointment that had been revoked because they had been appointed to the Social Assistance Appeals Court. I am curious, has this committee revoked that appointment and if it has not, is it going to revoke that appointment based on that opinion from Justice Nunn?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no information with regard to that situation so I can't comment at this time.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong here - I was wrong once last year so I could be wrong again this year - he used to be a councillor but I don't believe he is a sitting councillor now. Is that right? I will sit corrected if that is right but it was my understanding that he wasn't.
DR. SMITH: You could check with Jamie Muir, he's a relative of Jamie Muir's, I think.
MR. SAMSON: My understanding is he is his brother-in-law.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Just a question. This committee, of course, recommends, but the actual appointments, I believe, are done by an Order in Council. Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you could check with the government or the appropriate offices to determine if an Order in Council has in fact been issued to revoke the appointment, because I believe it would have to be done by an Order in Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that suggestion. I will do that. I think we are ready. Mr. Hurlburt.
MR. RICHARD HURLBURT: Mr. Chairman, Department of Health, Council of Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, I so move Jean Mary McDougall as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Discussion? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee. Last time we stood this, and I think it had to do with some issues that we brought forward relative to this appointment. It's getting more clear, but I'm not totally clear. This person doesn't have the education for it, and although she was an owner and dispenser, and to be a dispenser I expect must have had some pharmaceutical training. This is a lay appointment, and I'm not clear, yet maybe somebody can provide this information, as to her status, whether she is a true layperson or is, in fact, a professional. I think the legal matters surrounding these appointments have to do with at least members of the council, and I suspect that would be met. It's just my impression that she's not really a true layperson who may sit in disciplinary and investigative matters.
While I appreciate the time of the committee, that it's been stood at our request, I wonder if somebody could add some enlightenment, whether she is truly a layperson and what her profession was. She doesn't list her education here, and I'm not clear. This is the person we had information that she was a legal consultant of some kind on personal injuries. That was a mistake, and that's been cleared. I don't want to prolong this, because I don't have any particular - I know there is some affiliation with the Tory Party in her area, but I don't have that as a real negative towards the person. Like Mr. Olive has said, you can have one mistake a year.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think if you refer to the letter that she submitted, 29-H, along with her resumé, second paragraph, you'll see, "Being a recent widow of a pharmacist, I now have the time to devote to activities of special interest to me, namely those involving public service in Nova Scotia." She gives no indication that she was a pharmacist but certainly had worked around the profession and has a lot of knowledge and information with regard to that. She is considered a layperson from the information that I've been given as an appointment to this board.
DR. SMITH: I was just looking at the resumé, and Experience, "Owner/Manager/Public Relations/Dispenser/Front Counter, McDougall's Drug Stores, New Minas, Kentville and Chester Basin . . .". To me a dispenser would have been a pharmacist. Then I suppose you could be considered to be a layperson if you are a retired pharmacist, although I'm not sure that would be the best layperson to have. I guess that's where I'm focusing. She did request other boards, it might have been simpler to have her on another board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education, Western Counties Library Board, I so move Gary Archibald as a 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. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education, the Student Assistance Higher Appeal Board, I so move Adam Church as a member. He is a student representative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: He's a young Tory at Acadia. (Interruptions) But he's a good person and we want to support that in spite of him very early in life getting off on the wrong path. (Laughter) I expect he might see his way eventually.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first meeting of the Human Resources Committee after release of the Archie Kaiser settlement. Members of the committee, I am sure, will be aware that part of the terms of settlement are setting up a new process for what in the settlement are called adjudicative boards. These are the boards that make decisions about people's rights and entitlements, they hear evidence and they make formal decisions. The idea, I think, behind carving this group out is that politics has no place in decisions that are based on receiving evidence, listening to witnesses and then making decisions on people's rights and entitlements, as opposed to the advisory functions. In the list of adjudicative boards is the Student Assistance Higher Appeal Board.
This meeting is the first opportunity for the government to demonstrate its good faith, that it really believes in the principles laid out in the Kaiser settlement, that something different is going to happen. Now, I don't know Mr. Church from Adam (Interruptions) Dr. Smith has said, I don't know if it's true or not, that he's the President of the Young Conservative Club at Acadia University. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. For all I know he's the President of the Young NDP, I don't know.
What I will say that is for such an important board there is not the slightest indication about why Mr. Church has been selected over the other 14 applicants. I would also make particular note of the fact that on the Student Assistance Higher Appeal Board there is one seat for a student, one seat and Mr. Church is going to get it. There is no indication that any other student organization was consulted or that they endorsed his candidacy or that he represents anybody except himself. I think that's unfortunate, particularly because the Kaiser settlement acknowledges that this board is different from the others. I am disappointed that it looks like business as usual, frankly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might draw your attention to his resumé with regard to a Bachelor of Arts and Honours, a grade point average of 3.7, current Margaret L. Ford Scholar. He graduated with honours and distinction from high school, finished second in a class of 146 and recipient of the Annapolis Valley Regional School Board Award upon graduation. He is the student representative, but he certainly does seem to be a well-qualified student.
MR. STEELE: I'm not saying that he can't do the job, but that's not the criterion that we're supposed to be applying. The criterion laid out in the Kaiser settlement is that the government is committed to choosing the best-qualified person. Maybe he is the best-qualified person, and if he is and if somebody can prove that to me, I'll be the first one to stand in line to shake his hand and welcome him aboard. There is nothing in this book that tells me, a member of the Legislature, that Adam Church is the best-qualified person to do this job.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the government has committed to have this process in place within a year. I think it's not unreasonable to expect that there is some carryover. I think it's highly unfair for the honourable member to imply that this is a one-off, he was picked and there was no competition. Fifteen people applied for this, and he was deemed to be the best qualified prior to, and I would suggest he would probably still be the best qualified after the new guidelines are in.
MR. HOLM: But you don't know.
MR. OLIVE: The fact is - and the honourable member for Sackville, he understands as well, there is a carryover period - that this person is the best qualified. He quite possibly
will be the best qualified after the changes to the process, and I think it's highly unfair to sort of jump on the bandwagon now in some campaign for re-election as Leader or whatever the reason is to pick on this poor individual and imply that the system is going backwards the first day we have an appointment. That's not true. He was one of 15, and was selected as the most qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if he's the best qualified, but obviously Adam's resumé certainly gives me a very good level of comfort, in the fact that he's capable and will certainly be a strong voice on this as the student representative. I guess too often we're critical, but having met with a number of different university groups, I'm certainly pleased to see that the minister and government are finally moving forward on filling some of the vacant student representative positions on a number of agencies, boards and commissions, that deal directly with student issues. This has been a long time in coming.
[9:45 a.m.]
Is Adam Church the most qualified? I don't know that but certainly from what I see in front of me, he certainly has decent credentials as a student to be aware of issues facing those who would be impacted by the appeals made by this committee. I am pleased to see this vacancy is being filled and I certainly hope the remaining vacancies will be filled by the minister and by this government in a very short period of time. I have no reason not to support this appointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: On a point or order before you call the question, just to request that after you call the yeas and nays that you also call for the abstentions because of the lack of information. There are some of us who wish to abstain on the vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
Two abstentions noted.
The motion is carried.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment and Labour for the Resource Recovery Fund Board, I move the name of Darrell Hiltz as chairman and member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion? Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I just want to point out that Mr. Hiltz was appointed originally by the MacLellan Government. I think he has done a fine job with the Resource Recovery Fund Board, which has been a tremendously important board in this province, whose revenues continue to increase. The unfortunate part is that as the revenues increase, the government keeps stealing more of their money out of their pockets then putting it back in the pockets of Nova Scotians. One can only hope that Mr. Hiltz will continue his fine work and that the government will stop picking the pockets of the Resource Recovery Fund Board. We are certainly pleased to see that the government is reappointing such a valued member of the Public Service as Mr. Hiltz.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Do we have further 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. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under the Workers' Compensation Board I move the name of James Neville as Labour Member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we will go with the question. 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, Health Authorities, District 6, Pictou County, Edward F. Bowden, member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I think the Past President of the Central Nova PC Party will probably meet the criteria of the member for Dartmouth South and be able to interpret the government policy on health matters. I would support that appointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: I was so looking forward to Dr. Smith making that statement because, quite frankly, this has absolutely nothing to do with the comments he just made. This was a community appointment. This individual is a member of a minority in Nova Scotia. The community appointment was made by the local district health board and had absolutely nothing to do with the existing process, just to clarify that comment, and I will accept your apology again for the comments.
DR. SMITH: I was just congratulating you in having such a fine member but also for being in a better position to interpret PC health policy, as Past President of the Party.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion on the motion? 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. Barnet.
MR. BARRY BARNET: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, the Judicial Appointments Review Committee, I move Robert S. Wright as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, under the Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, I would move Keith Evans and E. Arleen Paris as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, also under the Department of Justice, Police Review Board, I would move Brian S. Creighton as chair/member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, this appointment has a bit of a history and I just wanted to, for the record, note what that history was. I will start by saying also that the Police Review Board is one of the adjudicative boards listed in the Kaiser settlement, so again it is deserving of some special attention.
This particular appointment came up, I believe it was in the fall, because Mr. Creighton is an experienced and well-regarded Chairman of the Police Review Board and as his term was coming up the government saw fit to reappoint him for only three months. He was as puzzled as anyone about why he was receiving such a short appointment, especially considering the fact that without him the Police Review Board only had a single member, namely the Minister of Justice's official agent from the last election. I had raised the issue at
the time about why Mr. Creighton was being treated in this way and the government members on the committee, of course, had no answer to that. So I am very pleased to see that Mr. Creighton is being reappointed now as chairman. It is only for a year but I think that is probably a suitable length of time because the government is committed to reforming the appointment process within the year, so when this appointment comes up for renewal, we will have a chance to see just how well the government appointment process works with respect to the Police Review Board.
I would note in passing, since I know this is of interest to members of the committee, that Mr. Creighton is a Liberal from the Amherst area and he is a fine lawyer and highly regarded and I am pleased to see that he is being reappointed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for those comments.
Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, following up with Mr. Steele. I would like to compliment the government. They recognize the great appointments we had made and even when Party affiliation is known like that, they have seen fit to do that. So I think there is hope that something happened over Christmas a little bit.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr. Smith. Any other 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. STEELE : Mr. Chairman, I just heard the member for Dartmouth South say something, I just wanted to make sure that it was on the record for posterity. I just wondered if he would like to repeat closer to the microphone.
MR. OLIVE: I don't remember what I said.
MR. STEELE: Patronage is dead. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't an accident.
DR. SMITH: He can't be running for the Liberal leadership. (Laughter)
MR. STEELE: I just thought we would invite the member to say it loud and clear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for giving him that opportunity, it is greatly appreciated.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: For the record, Mr. Chairman, could Dr. Smith repeat that again. (Laughter)
DR. SMITH: Not on your life. (Laughter)
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Okay, Mr. Chairman, under Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, the Nova Scotia Real Estate Commission, I move Kent L. Noseworthy as a commission member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any 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. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts for the Central Region and as you know, Tara Miller has withdrawn her name. If it is the prerogative of the committee, I will move it as a slate, unless there are objections, the names. Therefore I would move the names of John D. Bonn, Kevin P. Downie, Kate Foster, David T.S. Fraser, Frank MacDonald, Kenneth A. MacLean and Peter Trask as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? The question has been called.
MR. STEELE: I'm sorry. I thought the member, when he said slate, I thought he was going to do them all, which I wouldn't object to, since my comments are more generally related to all of them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no objections if you want to keep going.
MR. STEELE: Unless the Liberal members have an objection.
MR. CLARKE: I will just keep going. For the Eastern Region: Alexander W. (Sandy) Hudson and Steven K. O'Leary as members; for the Northern Region: Ronald R. Chisholm and David J. Mahoney as members; for the Southern Region: Patricia Colman, James P. DiPersio and Richard W.P. Murphy as members; and in the Western Region, I so move David A. Proudfoot as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would like to point out that the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts are also on the list of adjudicative boards in the Kaiser settlement that are deserving of some kind of special treatment. Again, today, I was looking for some sign, some hope from the government that they actually take the terms of the Kaiser settlement seriously. What I see is something different. If the government were taking the Kaiser settlement seriously, it seems
to me that they would be appointing people to these adjudicative boards for no longer than one year. They do need time to reform the process and they've given themselves a year to do it, but the quid pro quo for that or the flip side of that coin is that nobody on these adjudicative boards should be appointed for longer than a year, because once the new process is in place everybody should go through it.
One of the interesting things about the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts is what is the normal practice versus what is the government proposing today. I'm just reading from the book here, it says, "TERM: Statute provides for 3 year appointment but traditionally they have been for 1 year . . ." It says, traditionally appointments to the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts have been for one year. But all the appointments before us today are for two years.
I'm looking for some tangible sign from the government that they take the Kaiser settlement seriously, and it seems to me that appointing these people for the traditional one year term would be such a sign. I don't know what to read into the fact that they are setting tradition aside and actually appointing people for a longer period than is traditional, particularly on such an important board.
I'm sure the other members are the same as me, I'm hearing a lot of people these days talk about their assessments. The last two days have been more or less non-stop dealing with people on one particular street who are upset about their assessments. Some of them are eventually going to appear before the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts, and when they do they have to have confidence that the very best people available are the ones who are going to be hearing their case. As a member of the Legislature, I can't say that in the material before me I have the evidence that these are the very best people available.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive, then Mr. Samson.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I wish the NDP leadership was over so we could stop this grandstanding. The honourable member for Halifax Fairview has complained over and over again ad nauseam about the fact that the government is not appointing people who are qualified to sit and adjudicate such things as the Assessment Appeal Courts. Every one of these appointments, every single one of them, are lawyers. Every one of them, if you go through the book.
The fact is that the government - and he's looking for a sign, I'm not sure what kind of sign it is, maybe it's a mack truck, I'm not sure - has made a substantive move to accommodate and to meet what is perceived to be an other than appropriate process by ensuring that the legal community is supervising and going through these appeals so that there is fairness in every way, shape and form. For the honourable member to sit there now and say, okay, now they've met the first requirement, there are lawyers being appointed, now I'm going to complain about the time. Well, if they were appointed for six months or a year, he
would be complaining that they're not there long enough to get experience to be able to do the job. (Interruptions)
[10:00 a.m.]
Mr. Chairman, it's just incredible that we should be subjected to this insignificant barrage of conversation and complaints from the honourable member for Fairview. It's unbelievable. These people are all good people. We have, for example, in the northern region a past Liberal candidate, Ronald R. Chisholm, a good person, a very well-qualified person, being appointed to this board. Richard Murphy in the southern region, a past Liberal candidate in Argyle, a good individual, somebody more than able to manage an assessment appeal in the southern region. In the western region, David Proudfoot, past President of the Federal and Provincial Riding Associations, a good person.
I don't know what the member expects. I guess I do know what he expects, he expects us to put the NDP membership list in front of the ABC committee and have them all appointed, and even that might not satisfy him. It's just very frustrating to have him continually bring up things that are so insignificant when the government has made a major effort to conform to complaints placed before this committee. The honourable member for Richmond said earlier that's part of what the function of this committee should be, that they should be allowed to bring their concerns forward and have the government react. The government has reacted here, and I'm quite proud of the fact that this has come out the way it has, and I look forward to more of the same as the new process unfolds under Minister Baker.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, it's not often that I'll agree with too much that the member for Dartmouth South says. (Laughter) But I think we have to be a bit careful here with the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts when the member for Halifax Fairview starts on his tangent and his love of Archie Kaiser, on all of these appointments. I think it's important to note, having been in government, there were 62 applications here. I'd be curious to see the breakdown of where those applications came from. I can tell you that for the Cape Breton Region it was hard to find applicants for these positions. Being a member of the Bar and those who have had experience with lawyers, $165 for a half-day is not a very good day to pay your expenses as a lawyer.
With these kinds of appeal courts I don't think we're going to get too many professors or academics or experts in the appeal system who are going to be applying for this. If you look, most of the lawyers applying here are very recent graduates from the Law School. There aren't too many senior lawyers who are applying for these positions. I think we should be a bit careful here not to stretch out a bit too much about who is the best qualified for Regional Assessment Appeal Courts when we have a hard time getting people
to apply for them in the first place. And, as was noted by the member for Dartmouth South, many of these are reappointments. I would argue, if you look at the amount of applicants for this as compared to the amount of applicants the last time, it's probably quite similar.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to be questioning whether these are the best qualified. I think each of their resumés speak for themselves, and the fact that they are being reappointed clearly shows that, once again, it was a good decision to appoint them, by the previous government in the first place. We will certainly be supporting these appointments.
DR. SMITH: I was wondering when you were going to get around to saying that. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay. Abstentions.
We have two abstentions.
The motion is carried.
MR. HOLM: Tim persuaded me not to vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If you'll take a look at your agenda for today, under committee business, next meeting dates, we have a conflict for Tuesday, February 12th to bring in Christene Hirschfeld, and we are looking at March 5th for the date of bringing her in to the committee. If you would please consider that and put it in your book, that will be the change. We'll send out a notification of that.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, the second item down there, I take it, is Tuesday, February 26th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DR. SMITH: Is that the definite date then, Mr. Chairman, February 26th?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. If there is no other business of the committee - hearing none, we stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:05 a.m.]