MR. CHAIRMAN: I call this meeting of the Human Resources Committee to order and perhaps we could start with Ron and we will go around the table and introduce ourselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. With that, I think everybody has an agenda and we can move along to the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Mr. Taylor.
MR. BROOKE TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would move Roy Surette as a member to the Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board of Nova Scotia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I move Rolland Hayman, Jeanne Cruikshank and Michael Scothorn to the Natural Products Marketing Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. BARRY BARNET: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Economic Development, I move to the Film Development Corporation Board of Nova Scotia, Martin J. Pink as chairman of the board; and Michael H. Conde, Ernest J. Dick and Paul MacKinnon, members. So moved.
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, under the Department of Education, the Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority, I so move J. Urban Cannon and Heather J. Macpherson as members of the board of directors.
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 Nova Scotia Advisory Board on Colleges and Universities, I so move Mr. Chris Wilson as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: This would be a good time for me to add my usual caveat that I don't believe the information that is before us today gives us, the members of the committee, enough information to judge whether the people being put forth today are the best qualified for the positions. I'm certainly not opposed to Mr. Wilson, but I just wanted to, for the record, note how thin the information is. In fact, I just want to read his covering letter, this is in Mr. Wilson's own words. This is apparently what qualifies him to be a student representative, out of tens of thousands of students registered in Nova Scotia universities, this is what qualifies him to be one of the students on this council advising the minister on university issues.
He's a first-year law student at Dalhousie University and he says, "I believe that I would make a good candidate for this position as I have had, and am having, a wide and varied experience as a university student. While taking my undergraduate degree I played varsity football for McGill and so gained a unique insight into university life within Canada."
That's what he says about his involvement with an insight into universities. As I said, out of the tens of thousands of university students, he's being picked out to represent the voice of students on this advisory council. Maybe he is the best, maybe he isn't. It's just, with
the information in front of me, I have no idea. I think it's a shame when the members of the committee are asked to approve people on such skimpy information.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, obviously the honourable member hadn't played football in university.
MR. STEELE: That's true, I didn't.
MR. JOHN HOLM: It would also be interesting to know what kind of involvement he has had with student life and student issues on campus other than the football team in Montreal.
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: If I might, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments made by the member for Halifax Fairview, talking about the thousands of students and how this one was picked out. I think it's important to keep in mind there were seven applicants for this position, not thousands or hundreds or dozens, there were seven. Again, having been a recent graduate myself, I think it's important, on these types of boards, that you have students who come from various backgrounds. Anyone who's attending university, I think is certainly aware of the issues and what's going on around that. Again I should point out that there was a big push on by different student groups, which I have met with, trying to encourage the minister to actually fill these positions.
As I said last meeting, I'm certainly pleased to see that the minister is going forward and actually filling the student representative positions on these boards, which have been vacant for quite some time. Certainly I have no reason to believe that Mr. Chris Wilson will not be a valued member of the Nova Scotia Advisory Board on Colleges and Universities.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion?
MR. STEELE: If I might, Mr. Chairman. I think what the member for Richmond has just said sort of points out exactly what it is that I'm talking about. Where he said that he has no reason to believe that he won't be a valuable member, that's quite a different standard from saying that we know or we believe he is the best qualified person. It's just a good way of contrasting the difference between the standard that we're expected to work on with the information we have before us and the standard we ought to be working on.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if I just might. The honourable member for Halifax Fairview seems to somewhat selectively reference what he felt was Mr. Wilson's qualification and his work experience. I think it's very important that we do recognize that he volunteered with the Metro United Way, the individual worked with Wilson's Fuel Company, and he's a sailing instructor at the Shortts Lake Yacht Club. The young individual seems to be very well-rounded, irrespective of some comments by a member with very little knowledge of the individual's background. I think it's only fair that if we're going to try to
paint the individual with some type of brush of inexperience that we include the various assets that the young man has.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, again, that's the point exactly. I have very little knowledge of Mr. Wilson. I'm expected to approve him based on virtually no information. I'm sure he's a fine fellow, and he may very well do a great job on this council. All I'm saying is that as an MLA, I have no idea whether he'll be a good member or not.
MR. SAMSON: Not to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, but if this applicant had on it that he was a doctorate, a scientist and an astronaut, we still don't know if he's going to be a good member. I don't think any of us around this table know if he's going to be a good member, he might be the worst bloody member that's ever been seen on these agencies. We're not here to act as God and predict how people are going to behave once they're on these committees. Obviously this applicant has four years of university, minimum, if he's made it to law school. Even if this applicant had on it that he was on student council or was on all these different committees, having attended university I believe I have more confidence in this applicant than I probably would have in those applicants who might have a full resumé of student politics.
Again, there are seven applicants here, not thousands, not hundreds or dozens. There are seven. We have a minimum fourth-year university student here. I believe he certainly brings a number of attributes to this. Again, we look at the board he is on, it's an advisory board. I think the member for Halifax Fairview might be carrying this a bit too far, especially in this case.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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, the Dr. P. Anthony Johnstone Memorial Fund Entrance Scholarship, I so move Marilyn Huber, Edward J. Mroz and Wanda Robson as representatives.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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, the Library Board, Pictou-Antigonish, I so move Maureen MacGillivray and Conrad Poirier as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? 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 Finance, the Halifax-Dartmouth Bridge Commission, I so move Bruce S. Smith as chairman; Linda Moreash as secretary; and David Covill, Larry Guptill and Clinton Schofield as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, the Dental Board, I so move Kore-Lee Cormier, Dr. Andrew B. Stewart and Angela Mae Worsley as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Mr. Holm, did you have your hand up?
MR. HOLM: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Dr. Smith.
DR. JAMES SMITH: I have one minor issue on Dr. Andrew Stewart. There's a lack of a CV on his application, but probably more importantly I have some other concerns relative to the appointments here that I would like to bring before the committee this morning. We have had some information and some representations to us that the two reappointments of Dr. McGrath from Baddeck and Mr. Nickerson from Yarmouth County had been recommended by both the chairman of the board and the registrar. That has not come forward; their names have not come forward. There are some allegations of political interference. I don't have any information of that but we do have the letter from Dr. Bonang, who has been the long-standing Registrar of the Dental Board.
[9:15 a.m.]
The importance of this is that these two people, Dr. McGrath and Mr. Nickerson - Mr. Nickerson is an accountant - are on the subcommittee, the finance committee, which will basically take that committee out of existence, as it had been functioning. So I want to table with the committee Dr. Bonang's letter to the Minister of Health, December 18, 2001, relative to the recommendation.
In particular with Mr. Nickerson, I would like to say he, ". . . is a public representative appointed by Governor in Council." According to the letter of that date, "His term concludes on January 31, 2002, and he is eligible for reappointment. Mr. Nickerson has gained considerable knowledge of the function and mandate of the Board and has made a significant contribution. In the interest of maintaining continuity of public representation, reappointment to a final . . ." - and that would be his final three year term, this would be his ninth. If he finished that three years, it would make nine years and then he would not be eligible for reappointment. So he has served six years, as we speak - ". . . reappointment to a final three year term is respectfully requested." Signed D.M. Bonang, DDS, Registrar of the Provincial Dental Board of Nova Scotia. I will just table that.
MR. HOLM: Just a quick question, if I could, to Jim. Are there still any vacancies now on that board that you are aware of? I am just wondering if there is any indication . . .
DR. SMITH: There have been reappointments done.
MR. HOLM: I was just wondering if there is any indication that he still may be appointed in a . . .
MR. SAMSON: There are already four and they are putting another three, so it is hard to believe there are more than seven.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, through you, a question to Mr. Smith?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. TAYLOR: Jim, did you say there is no CV attached?
DR. SMITH: I'm sorry, that was my first point; for Dr. Andrew Stewart, there is not.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, and it indicates that one is attached in the information.
DR. SMITH: It indicates it is but it is not. That was a minor issue I just wanted to bring before the committee but my main concern was the reappointment and the lack of reappointments of people who had served two terms, a total of six years, an integral part of the function of the board and particularly the finance committee in the role as an accountant and recommended by the registrar. Also, I don't have any written information but I think that some of the political operatives in the community were not favourable to Mr. Nickerson and made representation to that effect. I don't imagine that you, as chairman, would have any knowledge of that, if that was so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: Well, I do have the letter from Mr. Bonang. I don't have any other documentation that there was active lobbying in any way made against Mr. Nickerson but I think that is the feeling of Mr. Nickerson that there had been in the local community.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele and then Mr. Samson.
MR. STEELE: Dr. Smith answered my question in the remarks that he has just concluded.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, based on the information that my colleague, Dr. Smith, has raised, especially the letter of December 18th which not only talks about Mr. Nickerson but also goes on to say in the fourth paragraph, "Dr. R. McGrath of Baddeck is a vital member of the Board, is a member of several Board committees, and makes a very significant contribution. Continuity of function is largely dependent on Dr. McGrath and, with respect, your favorable consideration of reappointment is requested." We now have information before us that both Dr. McGrath and Mr. Nickerson have applied for reappointment. We do have a letter of recommendation here from the registrar, Mr. Bonang, clearly requesting that from the minister.
Based on the fact that we don't know why the minister did not reappoint these individuals, with this letter of recommendation, I would make a motion that we stand these names for appointment until such time as the chairman has the opportunity to discuss with the minister exactly why these individuals weren't reappointed, especially in light of the supporting documentation we have here from Dr. Bonang. I would move that we stand the names for this meeting. We can appoint them, if necessary, at our next meeting when we get the information necessary before going forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We do have the motion on the floor for the approvals currently.
MR. SAMSON: That was second.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yours would be a second motion?
MR. SAMSON: No, I would move that my motion supercedes the first motion.
MR. TAYLOR: You can't make a motion on a motion on the floor, in view of the motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HOLM: Can you not move to stand a motion that is before the committee?
MR. TAYLOR: Let me check my book.
MR. STEELE: Or alternatively, Mr. Chairman, we could either have the mover of the motion withdraw it or we could simply have an agreement to defeat the motion if it comes to that, so that then the motion that the member for Richmond just made would then be in order. Let's not get too hung up on procedure here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's acceptable to the committee could we take a few seconds? I just received the letter. Could we take a few seconds so everybody could view the letter? Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in support of my colleague, essentially what we're saying is with this information coming forward, we, as a committee, should be assured these are the best appointments coming forward. We're not sure if the minister acknowledged this letter of December of Dr. Bonang's and if so, how it was justified that the following appointments were more qualified than the ones recommended by Dr. Bonang. I think it's a simple matter of the function of this committee being assured that those people are the best qualified and that they take precedence over the two recommended by Dr. Bonang.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Has everyone had a chance to review the letter? I'm assuming we have. Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: If I could point out, Mr. Chairman, regarding rules in committee, as all members understand we do follow rules that are adhered to in the House. Unless there's unanimous consent, when a motion is on the floor the protocol is that that motion be dealt with. I have made the motion, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask that the question be called.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I have a comment. One of the procedural options which is for the member who proposed the motion to withdraw it obviously is not going to happen because he just said he is not going to withdraw it. The only other alternative in order for this motion to be considered is for the motion currently on the floor to be defeated so that's what I will address myself to.
There's an important issue that's been raised here and it goes back to the question of whether Nova Scotians get the best qualified people to represent them on provincial agencies, boards and commissions. This is one of the governing bodies of the dental profession and so within that sphere it is extremely important. We have the registrar recommending certain reappointments. Now that's not to say his recommendations need to be accepted always and everywhere; it's the prerogative of the Executive Council to appoint whom they please. The real issue here, of course, is that now the members of this committee are not in a position to know or to say who the best qualified people are.
To echo what the member for Richmond said, Dr. R. McGrath, Baddeck, according to the registrar, is a vital member of the board and yet is not being proposed for reappointment. I for one, before I vote in favour of these names before us today, certainly would like to know more about in what respect they're considered to be better qualified than Dr. McGrath, who sat on the board and is considered by the registrar to be a vital member of the board. It is just something I would like to have clarified before I'm asked to vote on it. With that thought I would like to ask the member who proposed the motion to again consider withdrawing it or at least to ask one or more of his colleagues to consider voting against it because otherwise, this committee would again be revealed as the farce that it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a good opportunity to raise the point of procedure that if we're going to continue in the way that's been suggested by the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley and by yourself, there obviously needs to be a new means of doing this. What's been happening is we sit back and wait until the government members put a motion with the names forward. We then raise concerns, if there are concerns, about specific appointments. For example, we've raised concerns in the past about municipal councillors being put on boards such as the Municipal Assessment Appeals Board. When we make motions asking that possibly one name out of four be stayed, what you have been doing as chairman and what your government has been doing is saying, we're not going to deal with that motion until we deal with the main motion. What's been happening is the main motion gets passed and then the new motion is never dealt with.
I don't know what rules of procedure are possibly going to say that's the proper way of doing things. When we've tried to raise concerns about names before a motion is even made, the procedure has been let's wait until the motion is made first, putting the names on the record and then we'll deal with any concerns. Well, if it is a case where you are not going to allow a vote on any concerns or motions raised after the initial motion, then I would move that from here forward that any concerns the Opposition has that you request that we raise them before asking for a motion to adopt the names.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to tell you here but you've got us in a box here, you're telling us wait until the names are on the record but once we raise any motions to stay those names you're telling us, you can't deal with that motion of staying a name until you've dealt with the original motion. Obviously the government supports it and it never gets dealt with, so some changes have to be made.
Maybe it's not the right time but this can't continue. I've seen it happen at too many meetings where our motions aren't even being dealt with on the basis that you're saying there's already a motion on the floor and so we don't deal with any other motions. If that's the case, once different categories come up I would propose that we be allowed to immediately raise motions at that point, if those are the rules and procedures we are going
to follow or I would suggest to you, when motions are raised they should be dealt with and voted on before going to the main motion. Clearly, right now we're running all around and you, as chairman, have to clearly set out guidelines which are fair to both the government and the Opposition when we raise our concerns.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might just take a second, my understanding is that this information went out one week prior to this meeting. To my knowledge, nobody has contacted me, my office, nor the Committees Office with any of these concerns prior to. I am new at this but my assumption - and maybe we should never assume - was that if there were issues and concerns, that they would be brought forward prior to this meeting so that we could look at them then.
MR. SAMSON: That's why we meet here, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but . . .
MR. SAMSON: We have never been asked to bring forward any concerns to you, that's why we have this meeting. It's on the record, people can see what the discussions are, rather than discussions taking place off the record that no one is aware what's been discussed. That's why we bring our concerns forward here, we discuss them in an open forum and it's on the record and everyone's responses are clearly marked down for everyone to see.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm fully aware of why we bring the issues here, it's just that we came here today and we all know the process. I think we've been working under this process for quite some time now and I know there are some concerns with how it functions but it's not something that's going to change today. It's something perhaps the subcommittee could look at but it's not something that's going to change today and if there is a motion on the floor and we're following the procedures of the Legislature then that motion has to be dealt with before we look at another, if the member isn't willing to withdraw the motion.
MR. SAMSON: Not to get into too much of an argument, but that's almost like saying when a bill is introduced that we don't vote on any amendments until we deal with the entire passage of a bill, which doesn't make any sense. A bill is introduced, a motion is made for it to pass, then we go clause by clause and make amendments to the bill or introduce possible amendments. Those amendments are voted upon first before you go forward asking for a vote on the entire bill.
What you're saying to us here is, we're going to introduce it and then you guys can bring forward amendments or any sort of motions you want, but we're not going to deal with those, we're going to deal with the original motion, which means the entire passage without looking at any amendments.
[9:30 a.m.]
I would argue to you that the Rules of the House are not being followed here by doing such things. If that was the case, your government would introduce a bill, ask for passage of the bill, and then say, okay, any amendments you want, well, we're going to vote on that bill first. That doesn't make any sense, and I would suggest to you the system is broken. If we're not going to fix it today - and we have to fix it - I wouldn't wait for the subcommittee, I think you as chairman can clearly fix what's going on here. It's broken and it's not working.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we can't get some kind of agreement and that it's gotten to this stage. If the Rules of the House are being followed, it certainly is within the Rules of the House, as the Deputy Speaker of the House would know, to make an amendment to a motion that's before the House. We now have a motion before the House, but that means, of course, Mr. Chairman, that other members of this committee can make amendments to that motion. Therefore, we have certainly debated six months and one year time delays in terms of the votes, well, I'm not going to be suggesting anything quite so extreme as trying to put it off for six months or a year, but I am going to move that the motion that is before us be amended to state, and that the vote shall be held not before the next meeting of the Human Resources Committee's ABCs.
In effect, Mr. Chairman, it's not removing the motion that's on the floor and it's not changing the principle of the motion, but what it is doing is stating that the vote will take place at the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. That will give the opportunity for the information that is being sought to be obtained, and also it is not causing anybody to back down from the position they have put forward in terms of moving these names forward. It may afford a chance for some calmer heads to prevail, and the information that's necessary for all members to feel comfortable to be obtained.
Mr. Chairman, if you understand the principle of my motion, I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That, I'm informed, is in order. Is there any discussion on the amendment to the original motion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Chairman, can we have this recorded?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure we can. This is for the amendment to the original motion.
[The Chairman calls the roll.]
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Samson Mr. Ronald Chisholm
Dr. Smith Mr. Taylor
Mr. Holm Mr. Clarke
Mr. Steele Mr. Barnet
Mr. Morash (Chairman)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is defeated. (Interruptions)
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly to some comments that the honourable member for Richmond made earlier in reference to how this committee functions and how he feels you as chairman should conduct yourself relative to motions. The honourable member for Richmond knows full well that whether we're in committee or in the House or even in our community following Robert's Rules that any member of any organization, especially this committee, has the right to make a motion, either in support or against, or they can stand, and we've done that at this committee before. We have stood names before.
Mr. Chairman, I think that nothing is broken here. The fact of the matter is the honourable member might have been a little bit asleep at the switch. He had an opportunity, perhaps, to make a motion if he wanted to stand this name or have it rejected. Likewise for the honourable member for Dartmouth East. All, in certain cases, that may do is just prolong the inevitable, but nonetheless, if they have some questions then they can speak to it, and if they are so overwhelming and convincing, then as a committee we can, in fact, defeat our own motion, if that's the inclination of the committee. I don't think anything is broken.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: A couple of things. Certainly if the government majority have their instructions, it doesn't matter what the Opposition says, a motion is going to carry, as it would appear is going to happen in this particular case. I just want to go back to something you had said, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not a regular member of this committee. I have been in the past, but I certainly am spared that privilege at the present time. That having been said, I was puzzled by your suggestions that committee members may want to contact you or your office prior to this committee, if I understood you correctly, if there are any concerns with any of the appointments or any of the information. Was that what you were suggesting would have been appropriate or should happen, because that goes completely outside of what my understanding of the practices and how this committee operated?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably the point I was trying to get across, and it doesn't sound like I did it well, was that the Committees Office or myself could be contacted with regard to issues in the book. It probably is more . . .
MR. HOLM: You mean omissions, if there are papers missing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . in line with omissions and issues that are in there, yes, more so than additional information, because that wouldn't be available through me or the office.
MR. HOLM: Certainly the committee would not have any information on these people being the best candidates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Thank you for the correction.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I could make two points. One, I brought information before the committee this morning, from the registrar, that gentleman that most of us know has served the Provincial Dental Board with distinction, and has brought concerns here today relative to the lack of realizing the reappointment of two important key people on the subcommittee for finance.
There's been an initiative within the Dental Board on that, relative to that committee, and it's been worked on for months. It's my understanding it's about ready to be presented by these two gentlemen, Dr. McGrath and Brian Nickerson. So we have this information. This really has to bring into question the whole issue of, are the people who are taking these appointments in place of these two gentlemen more qualified? That is the basic question before this committee.
The other thing I've alluded to, and no one has picked up or commented on - maybe it's not worthy of comment - is political interference here and lobbying for removal of at least one of these people, and it may be two. Members of your government were informed of this, and I have reason to believe that probably other committee members know the matter of which I speak. I just want to go on record as bringing this before the committee as a concern, and it's certainly a concern of Mr. Nickerson, that he's not seen as a friend of the government in some way. For that reason, the inconvenience and the difficulties that this will cause the Dental Board by his not being reappointed and that the political initiatives seem to take precedence over that. I just want to go on record with that. I don't have proof of that. I have some communications and information on that, but I think that probably should be the extent of my comments at this juncture. Mr. Nickerson may want to speak for himself.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Chairman, just a question, if I may, through you, to Dr. Smith. A couple of times he made reference to political - and political, depending on how you are using it, can mean several things. You often talk about politics in organizations that has nothing to do with Party politics but it's internal politics, as I'm sure you understand. My question to Dr. Smith, when he's talking about suggestions of political interference, is that internal dental society politics, or is that big "P", partisan political Party politics that you're
referring to? Just so that we can flesh out which type of politics, political interference, we're referring to.
DR. SMITH: I think it's the easy kind, it's the big "P", political politics. It's not as difficult as health politics or church politics or all the other politics, no, it's the easy one, the big "P".
MR. HOLM: That's what I thought, but I just wanted to get that fleshed out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for the clarification.
DR. SMITH: I think it's important that Mr. Nickerson's local member is not here today. He's usually a member of the committee. He might have some comments on the matter of which we speak.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, that rejection connection is working really well over there this morning, firing on all cylinders. He even asked a question (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe, if there's no further discussion, that we're back to the original motion from the Department of Health, the Dental Board. The motion has been put forward. Is there any more discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HOLM: I think that it should be shown that it be recorded, Mr. Chairman. I think it is an important vote to be recorded.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we can record that vote.
[The Chairman calls the roll.]
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Ronald Chisholm Mr. Samson
Mr. Taylor Dr. Smith
Mr. Clarke Mr. Holm
Mr. Barnet Mr. Steele
Mr. Morash (Chairman)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess, just for the record, I think what we have done, as part of the procedure, is the proper way that this committee should operate. A motion was made, an initial motion with the four names; another motion was made regarding one specific name and it was voted upon before going to the original motion. I certainly hope that that will be the process that will continue from hereon forward when motions are raised by committee members after the initial motion is made.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the procedure.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion, with the indulgence of my colleagues, to the Practical Nurses Licensing Board for a board member, Joseph H. McLellan. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. 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. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, again, I don't mean to go ahead of anybody, but to the Council of Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, the name of Charles R. LeBlanc, for a board member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. 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. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Chairman, to the Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia, for board member, Richard C.J. Nurse. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. 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. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Health Council for board members: Casey Mooy, Walter Proctor, Brenda Sabo, who is a registered nurse, and Quenta Tynes. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Justice, the Municipal Board of Police Commissioners, I so move Doug Eddy as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Tourism and Culture, the Arts Council of Nova Scotia, I would move Gay Hauser, John Nowlan and Barbara Richman as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved.
Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about these proposed nominations but emphatically not for the people who are being put forward, not for what is in the book, because these are uniformly, excellent appointments, but for what is not in the book.
By way of background, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that a full complement on the Arts Council is 15 people. There are currently eight members, three more people are being appointed today, but three more expire at the end of April of this year.
It has come to my attention that the government's foot-dragging on making appointments to the Arts Council is causing real difficulty and hardship to the council, both in terms of continuity and developing expertise, and getting the commitment from the Arts Council members who find themselves with terms expiring.
For example, Gay Hauser is a good example. Her term expired at the end of April, 2001. Members will note from their books that she applied for reappointment on March 9,
2001, nearly a year ago. She is only just now being put forward for reappointment after having not been on the Arts Council, after having had to leave the Arts Council for the last - well, nearly 10 months.
[9:45 a.m.]
It's difficult to understand why the government is not putting the Arts Council up to the full complement. Members will also be aware that there is, currently, a great deal of concern in the arts community and in the Arts Council itself about what is perceived to be a lack of commitment by the government. What is happening with the appointments to the council is just one aspect of that perception of lack of commitment.
The specific concern that I want to raise today, Mr. Chairman, is about the fact that two members were proposed for appointment who were rejected by the minister, with no explanation, no reasons. The reason why that's such a concern with the Arts Council is that according to the Statute, the Arts Council Act, there is an arm's-length nominating committee composed of two members of the council, two people not members of the council appointed by the minister, and two persons jointly agreed upon by the chairman of the council and the minister.
This nominating committee is responsible for finding people and putting their names forward. It is intended to be a non-partisan, arm's-length process. In fact, it is highly unusual among the Statutes of Nova Scotia to have such an elaborate process for putting names forward. It is intended, precisely, to strip both the big "P" politics and the small "p" politics out of appointments to the Arts Council.
This independent, arm's-length nominating committee, I am advised, put forward five names to the minister some time ago and they had been thoroughly vetted by this arm's-length agency, but the minister saw fit to reject two of those names, no explanation, no reasons. Those concerned about the Arts Council are completely at a loss to know why these people who the nominating committee felt would be a great asset to the Arts Council, were rejected by the minister.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. We have a motion before us. Clearly, the honourable member for Halifax Fairview is not speaking to the motion. He said he had no difficulty with the names that were brought forward, so I would ask that we deal with this motion that is before us. If the honourable member has trouble with names not coming forward or names coming forward that he dislikes, then perhaps he should write a letter to the Executive Council. I clearly think that he's off base; he's not speaking to the motion.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: Mr. Chairman, I can't help pointing out, as the Deputy Speaker will know, the learned parliamentarian that he is in the House, that when a motion is on the floor, particularly in first readings - and this is really the same as first reading - that there is generally a broad-ranging discussion permitted. (Laughter) I just can't help pointing it out to the member.
MR. TAYLOR: Even you would agree it's broad-ranging, I'm pleased with that at least. He's way off base, Mr. Chairman. I believe we should deal with the motion. If he has no difficulty, as he indicated, with the names that came forward, then could we please deal with the motion. If he would like to speak subsequently, then perhaps we would indulge.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have some comments, Mr. Steele?
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I was pretty much finished but I have been inspired by that. (Laughter) There is a serious issue with the Arts Council and, clearly, if we are being asked to approve names, we have to put it in its proper context: are these the best qualified people to serve the people of Nova Scotia on the Arts Council? Well, it seems pretty clear they are. The reason I'm convinced of that, in this case, is because of this arm's-length, independent, non-partisan nominating committee which works very hard to find people who will serve with distinction. But what no one understands is why the minister saw fit to reject two other names that should be in our book today and are not. I think the minister has a lot of explaining to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Just to be helpful, because of the concerns raised that there should be 15, it might just be a suggestion arising out of this meeting that you, as chairman, would simply write to the minister and just request why we don't have those appointments, and maybe suggest to him and his staff that they might want to put those names forward so we can get the full complement.
MR. HOLM: Is that an amendment to the motion? (Laughter)
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I was intending to raise something along those lines at the conclusion of business, or under other business, so maybe we could hold that thought until we finish going through the book.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. BARNET: Mr. Chairman, under the Boxing Authority of Nova Scotia, I would move Richard "Dick" MacLean as chairman and Ricky Anderson as a member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion?
DR. SMITH: I would like to support these two great appointments, people committed to boxing. Back in the days when I was a ring physician, they were involved - Ricky was starting his career - and I just take great pleasure in seconding that nomination that doesn't need to be seconded.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Smith. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I just note that Dick MacLean is a constituent of mine. Somebody told me he was a Tory. I don't know if that's true, but he did work for a number of years for Walter Fitzgerald, the former Mayor of Halifax. If Mr. MacLean is a Tory in Halifax Fairview, he doesn't have a lot of company, I would like to say. I can hardly think of a better person to be put forward for the Boxing Authority, so I'm very much pleased to vote in support of his nomination.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That concludes appointments to the agencies, boards and commissions (Interruptions) For today, yes.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I had mentioned matters relative to the Archie Kaiser complaint to the Human Rights Commission and I made an undertaking that I would bring some information regarding a report that I referred to that didn't seem to be recognized. If I could comment on that now to meet my obligation. (Interruptions) No, I don't have the report and I shouldn't have it either.
What it rose out of, in July 1998, and I just want to read briefly a decision from Justice Davison, "In July 1998 the commissioners appointed a Board of Inquiry to inquiry [sic] into Mr. Kaiser's complaint, but on application to the Supreme Court in March of 1999 the appointment was quashed, and the complaint was returned to the Commission for further investigation. Mr. William Grant was directed to complete the investigation into Mr. Kaiser's complaint."
I'm not clear, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that is part of papers that are now not able to be made public or not being made public. There are two major papers that my communication had referred to and one was the terms of settlement agreement and I
understand there is a freedom of information now on that that may well be released within a period of time. The second one that I'm referring to particularly is an investigative summary that first Mr. Boudreau - Gerald, I believe, is his first name - was initially working on, a particular report rising out of a complaint in, I think, March 1, 1995, and then Mr. Bill Grant was the author of a report that I'm referring to. This was sent to the parties involved on October 5, 2000.
I don't feel I should comment more because I'm not clear. I know that the terms of settlement agreement is not to be released at this juncture and I believe the one I refer to is not to be released as well at this juncture. Now whether they will, because the terms of settlement says that it is to be made public, and maybe we have to look at the whole issue here of why something that was sent to parties on October 5, 2000 may still be in camera, or whatever the proper legal term would be at this juncture, I'm not sure. I know there were three recommendations and the parties involved, the persons' names were exonerated on that. That's why I brought it forward to the committee.
I had made an undertaking that I would get information relative to that and have the report, if I could, to table. I think I made that commitment to the member for Halifax Fairview. I'm not able to do this today because my advice is on the understanding that that is not to be made public at this juncture.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: This arose - I wish I had Hansard in front of me but - because Dr. Smith made a suggestion at a previous meeting of this committee that there had been a report coming out of the Human Rights Commission, suggesting there was no foundation to Archie Kaiser's complaint of discrimination. I asked him to produce that because it's an allegation that has never been heard before and it's not one that should just sit out there. If Dr. Smith can prove it, he should and if he can't prove it, he should apologize for suggesting it because I think everybody knows that the complaint was settled on terms, I would say, quite favourable to Archie Kaiser.
The settlement agreement is public and it was made public pretty much on the day it was approved by the Human Rights Commission and it's widely available, so everybody has it or has the means of getting access to that. The actual investigation reports produced by the Human Rights Commission are, under the Human Rights Act, confidential and in fact, that confidentiality overrides the Freedom of Information Act, the idea being the Human Rights Commission shouldn't have its files subject to production, that people should feel free to talk to the Human Rights Commission without fear that whatever comments they make might be produced at some future time. I think that's why the investigation report is and always will be confidential.
If Dr. Smith has a copy of something that he wants to produce, he's not bound by that same confidentiality. The confidentiality lies on the Human Rights Commission not to release it. If Dr. Smith has it and he thinks it supports the allegation that he's made well then, by golly, he should release it, there's nothing stopping him.
MR. SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into the legality but having reviewed a few decisions of the Human Rights Commission it makes it quite clear on it. In fact, there's a caveat on every one of them saying that they are confidential documents and that anyone who discloses them to someone other than a party involved in the matter, that would be a contravention of the Act. So I have to disagree with my colleague in suggesting that anyone or any one of us who might have any documents from the Human Rights Commission about a particular constituent should feel free about releasing them to this committee or to anyone else. I think that's a very dangerous comment and it contravenes the spirit of the Act that any of us should be going out there releasing confidential documents that we might have in our possession regarding a matter in front of that commission or tribunal.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that perhaps we can say there's a disagreement between two lawyers and leave it at that.
DR. SMITH: Well, I've never asked either of them for their advice, Mr. Chairman. (Interruptions) What I said to the committee and in Hansard - and maybe I did make some wider statements - it was my personal feeling that there certainly was not patronage involved in Archie Kaiser not being appointed to the Criminal Review Board or the Facilities Review Board. That is my personal opinion and I'm free to state that.
To me, it is very peculiar that documents are not public that have been released to a fair number, a large number of people. The information I have is that of the persons named - Premier Savage and others - it was recommended that any investigation or action be discontinued toward those persons, that's the information that I bring. Whether there is some other caveat within that, that maybe someone else is responsible for patronage denial of Mr. Kaiser, so be it and we don't know. I certainly - and if I had the document with me, which I don't today - wouldn't table it on any advice that I've had. So to heck with the free advice from the lawyers here this morning, I know what I'm going to do, I'm not going to table that. It is out there and I think the settlement - again, the point that I brought up was from the settlement particularly - we wanted to go forward as a Liberal Party, to have a fair hearing on the patronage allegation.
We had nothing to hide on this particular matter whatsoever. I personally was disappointed that there was a settlement reached by this government with Archie Kaiser on this particular issue. I don't agree that it was good, it's peanuts, it's a few dollars here and there, it's not a good settlement and it should have gone forward with an investigation to hear
about what allegedly was the denial of appointment on a patronage basis. I stand by that and I'm prepared to repeat that anywhere.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I wasn't giving Dr. Smith free advice, although as Dr. Smith has pointed out already, free legal advice is worth what you pay for it. The problem that I have is that Dr. Smith is now in a position of being able to make an allegation and then saying, the documents I have to back it up I can't release, which seems very convenient. If Dr. Smith wants to leave it at the point that it is his personal view that there was no patronage, that's fine, he is entitled to that opinion just like anybody else. But by no stretch to the imagination was Justice Davison's decision a decision on the merits of the case, he was dealing with the procedural issue.
If the investigation report of the Human Rights Commission at one stage recommended that the complaint against named individuals, including Dr. Savage, be dropped, well, as a matter of fact, they were dropped. The original complaint was against individual members of the Executive Council, as well as the government as a whole. The Human Rights Commission went forward with the complaint, dropping the complaint against the named individuals and leaving it as a complaint against the government. If there was anything like that in the investigation . . .
DR. SMITH: That's not true.
MR. STEELE: It is true.
DR. SMITH: No, you're giving the committee wrong information.
MR. STEELE: Dr. Smith is saying it's not true. It is true and he can check his facts on that because I know I have the correct facts and Dr. Smith is incorrect . . .
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. There are some other issues on the agenda today and although this is an important issue and perhaps the next episode of lawyerly love could continue at a later date, I think it's important we go back to the agenda and deal with these issues.
MR. STEELE: We're on the agenda, Mr. Chairman. We're on other business that Dr. Smith raised.
MR. TAYLOR: It's not on my agenda.
MR. STEELE: It's under other business. Now, if I could continue, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Smith can either say it is his personal opinion and leave it at that but just leaving this suggestion out there that someone, somewhere, found that Archie Kaiser's complaint was unfounded is simply wrong. He should either put forward the information or withdraw the allegation because in the environment of Nova Scotia politics, where Liberal and Conservative Governments for decades have engaged in the most scurrilous patronage practice to the detriment of all Nova Scotians, for him still to be fighting a battle when this matter has been settled, I think it's a real shame. So he should either put forward the information or drop the allegation.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will hear from Mr. Holm and, Dr. Smith, we will give you the last short word and then we will move on.
MR. HOLM: I guess really by Dr. Smith's own admission what he was bringing forward was his opinion and stating that his opinion is fact. Really, the whole debate has been advanced nowhere since he raised the issue today and possibly a news clip of something can come out of it but in reality, there's been no information brought forward to substantiate any kind of opinion. I just see the debate going nowhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith, to finish the debate.
DR. SMITH: In answer to Mr. Holm, I brought that forward today because I had made the commitment that if I could get the report I would bring it and table it. There are lots of ways to make mischief with this and my honourable colleague from Fairview today alleges I'm sort of making mischief and leaving it hang out there. He was very instrumental in that and quoted in some of those reports on his thesis, and I don't know if it has been defended or not or finished, maybe he could inform us on that. Until it is and published properly and circulated, then I think it also is a way that one can be a bit mischievous because it certainly is a unilateral opinion there. He has no problem bringing that forward from his unilateral point of view and I think that's been commented on by people evaluating the information he has brought forward, as well. So he has professional interest in this.
I am unable to bring the documents that I referred to, it was a verbal communication to me and I am unable to bring that forward today. I stand on my personal opinion and I will not be retracting anything I said previously.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Smith. We can move on to the agenda. There is a second issue there with regard to appointments to the Regional Assessment Appeal Court. It was asked of me to check to see if the appointment had been revoked by Executive Council and it has not been revoked. Mr. Cox's appointment stands and I report back to the committee.
MR. STEELE: The other item that I suggested I wanted to add under other business, as well, Mr. Chairman, when we were talking about the Arts Council.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay.
MR. STEELE: When we were talking about the Arts Council, the member for Richmond suggested that the chairman write a letter. I actually want to make a motion that as part of the Culture mandate of this committee that we request representatives of the Arts Council to appear before this committee to discuss some of the issues that had been raised publicly over the past number of weeks. I know all MLAs received a letter outlining some concerns that people have. There have been regular stories in the paper, letters to the editor, outlining concerns. What has happened with the appointments today is another aspect, another facet of the same issue.
It seems to me that it would be a good time for the Arts Council to appear before this committee because, after all, we do have a Culture mandate and they have appeared here before, although, certainly, before my time. I think it is time to hear from them again. I would like to move that the chairman be requested to write to the Arts Council, inviting them to appear before the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is put forward. Is there any discussion? Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Just as someone who is not a permanent member on this committee and who was at one point in time, I know that the committee, itself, had gone through a series of inviting groups and organizations to present in front of it. It was back, I believe, a year ago and it was pretty comprehensive when we had a number of presentations.
At this point, I wouldn't feel comfortable either voting for or against it because I am not an actual member of this committee. There are two of us, actually, on the government side who are filling in. There is one on the Opposition side who is filling in and I think it is a matter that is probably better for the committee when the majority of the members are here, the permanent members are here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we take that as a friendly suggestion. You have a problem if we delay voting on that motion until the next meeting?
MR. STEELE: The motion is on the floor and I would prefer that it be voted on. Mr. Chairman, I don't see any point in deferring it for another month. It is time the committee looked at this issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Barnet.
MR. BARNET: Well, I guess I have an option here, either to simply vote against the motion or to make a motion to defer until the next meeting. Either way, I have no agenda with respect to hearing them or not hearing them. I just think that it is more appropriate that those members who are permanent members of the committee be the ones who have influence over their future agendas. I don't feel comfortable at this time to support that.
I guess, having said that, I will move that it be deferred until the next regular meeting of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have an amendment to the original motion to defer to the next meeting. Is there any discussion on the amendment?
MR. SAMSON: I'm just curious. Why the request to defer? I missed that. I didn't catch what the argument was there, the reasons for it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The reason was that two members are not regular members on this committee and they would prefer that we just moved it forward so that the regular members were back to vote on the motion.
MR. BARNET: There are actually three who aren't regular members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Three.
MR. HOLM: Some of us are prepared to accept the responsibility. (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: So the question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We will deal with that motion at our next regular meeting.
With that, we move along to committee business. We have deliberations on the draft committee report. I think Mora is going to enlighten us on our report.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): All members received a copy about a month ago of the draft report. I asked for comments and I have received a couple, but it is just a matter of how the members felt. I'm not sure if they have their copies. I have extra copies here.
Basically, committees are required to report from time to time. There are only a few that have to report annually, such as Public Accounts. This was an effort to put, in writing, the procedures and policies that the committee holds now, or does now and follows, the
adding in of the screening panel process that has happened since 1999. It includes the list, up until the end of, I think it is, June 2001, as to all the appointments that have been made. It is a matter of, does the committee like this, do they want amendments to it, how do they feel about it, if they have had a chance to look at it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe all regular members have had copies of this sent out to them.
MS. STEVENS: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you heard back, or not heard back?
MS. STEVENS: Just a few comments. I know, Cecil, your name is now included, sorry. (Laughter) Graham had some comments, as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion or are we moving to accept this?
MR. STEELE: Well, no. I mean, the comment that I had passed along to Mora is that I couldn't possibly accept the report as written and that it definitely needed an addendum in some form or other to express our views on this committee and its operations. I don't anticipate that that addendum would be something that the government members would agree to. I guess I am just signalling my intention not to accept the report without adding such an addendum, which isn't written yet, but I have a feeling most of the government members can guess what it would say.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, can I just move acceptance of the report, as it is presented here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so then we will . . .
MR. STEELE: Discussion on the motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion?
MR. STEELE: So the motion is on the floor to accept it which, no doubt, the government majority are quite happy to pass. So where does that leave me, as a member who has signalled his intention to add an addendum before my signature goes on it? Where does that leave somebody who doesn't agree with the content of the report?
MR. BARNET: You vote against it.
MR. HOLM: No, no.
MR. STEELE: No, no. It is more complicated than that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will go around and hear from Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, there is the opportunity for members of committees - because I know I have written them before - to do a minority report and to have that attached to the report that goes out as a committee report.
Sometimes committee members could possibly sign the actual committee report, subject to the additional information that they want to include in the report. That has been done in the past and it is certainly something that is within the customs of the House, or the rules. Possibly, it may require that the motion be amended to say or if the member has moved the acceptance of the report then that the motion could be amended to add on words, something to the effect, and that minority reports of individual members may be added to the report, or something along that line. That is the gist of what I am saying.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a point of clarification for me, so the minority report would be attached to?
MR. HOLM: It would be part of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is part of it. That is past practice that it would be part of it?
MR. HOLM: Yes. The Select Committee on Education is a case in point where I did that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is, on this occasion, at least, correct. I do know that when the Select Committee on Electoral Boundaries met there were some concerns raised by a couple of members and an addendum was attached to the final reports. So it is certainly not something new and I, personally, have no problem supporting that type of amendment to the motion. It is up to the mover, I do believe.
MR. SAMSON: We're not a select committee. We are a standing committee.
[10:15 a.m.]
MR. TAYLOR: I understand that but I am just saying that . . .
MS. STEVENS: What we have had in the past in this committee, it can be a minority report or what we have done is condition of concurrence and the member will sign on the condition that a report or a letter is included in the report. It is just like a caveat to his signature that says there is a condition of his concurrence in approving the report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Appropriate.
MR. STEELE: That is fine although Mora was kind enough to send over some examples of previous - what do they call it? - conditions of concurrence. I'm not even sure if that's appropriate because apart from the purely factual stuff in the report, I'm just not sure that there is anything in here that I can agree to as an accurate assessment of the work of the committee. I guess just in terms of logistics, when and where would I deliver that document, whatever we end up calling it? Perhaps I could commit to delivering it before the next meeting of the committee on ABC appointments which would be the last Tuesday of March and we can take it from there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that fit into your time frame for producing the report?
MS. STEVENS: Oh, yes. This report can be published and printed whenever the committee is ready for it to be approved and do so. There is no timing whatsoever that it has to be done by a certain point.
MR. HOLM: Just for clarification, the member for Halifax Fairview said - and I'm paraphrasing roughly - that other than the factual information, there isn't much in the report that he could support. Well, that could be a condition, a statement in his letter of concurrence: my signature represents concurrence with the actual factual information; that, I think, would cover it off.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Just again for clarification, too, perhaps to Mora, I am just curious as to what form this addendum might take. Would it be attached to the hard copy of the annual report? There would be no requirement of the committee to actually accept or endorse, reject the views of the honourable member for Halifax Fairview. Just for my edification further, would it be the view expressed by the honourable member or would it be on behalf of the NDP caucus?
MR. STEELE: I will have to consult with the other permanent member of the committee to see if it is something that she would agree with as well. If she is, it will be both of us. I don't know yet. It could be just me. I anticipate it would be both of us.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I think it's important that committee members - and again, I am substituting today - there may be some merit in dealing with this issue at the next committee meeting also because there are some areas that are a little bit grey and I think honourable members should know exactly what the honourable member is requesting. It seems very reasonable, at least on the surface.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Holm.
MR. HOLM: My understanding of it is if a minority report is put in, that is signed by that individual member. It is not being endorsed by anybody else on that committee other than those whose signatures are on it. So if Mr. Steele does one and it's included, that doesn't mean that you, Brooke, are endorsing it. The other thing is that when signatures go on it, it is not representing whoever the government members' signatures go on it, that is their signature, it's not saying that the Tory caucus necessarily may, you may have caucused it and you may be following marching orders as to what you are or you aren't supposed to be saying, I don't know. Supposedly, it is an acceptance of that report by the individual members. It is not something that is a report of any individual caucus or caucuses.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agreeable to the committee that we should have some information from Mr. Steele by the next meeting and we would have more information with regard to actually putting the report together, that we could deal with it at that point in time? It sounds like time restraints aren't an issue. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Steele?
MR. STEELE: That would be fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clarke, you made the original motion to move it forward, so . . .
MR. CLARKE: If I can just add, I think my approval of this, this just speaks to the record of the decisions and the processes of this committee. I really believe that the opinion of this committee is well documented in Hansard and through any media and other reports that flow out of this process and I would note for the record, I think it is an opportunity for the honourable member for Halifax Fairview just to use it as a political soapbox as much as it is dealing with the affairs and the business that has transpired in this committee. If that is his prerogative, to use that as one more opportunity, recognizing that Hansard has recorded his opinion on many occasions, ad nauseam in fact, if that's what he chooses to do, then maybe step up to the soapbox and away we go. My motion on this stands, and I will not block any amendments to it. I think for the record, Mr. Steele is welcome to beak off again.
MR. HOLM: On a point of clarification, is that saying he's not agreeing to have the motion dealt with at the next meeting as you were suggesting, or . . .
MR. STEELE: To beak off?
MR. CLARKE: Beak, you know, like your beak.
MR. STEELE: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Chairman, to beak off?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith, nice to have a different Party heard from.
DR. SMITH: I was delayed momentarily. (Interruptions) I got John Holm's news clip. I really appreciated it. Some of the staff would remember the conference we had here of Public Accounts Committees. Even the socialists from Saskatchewan were very strong on committee reports being unanimous and not allowing groups, Opposition, in this case the Liberals and the NDP, to play politics and be mischievous with a particular report, if it means diluting the report or some other matters relative to what is in the report.
I remember the meeting had a very good discussion, a good session on that. Mora would remember that. It really struck me as being the spirit that these all-Party committees should have. I suppose from time to time there are some matters in there. Now this was the Public Accounts Committee and not the Human Resources Committee I'm referring to, but I certainly feel - I've read the report, I don't see why anybody can't support it. If they want to get the Hansards, fine. I think there was agreement across this country in that particular meeting of the Public Accounts Committees that the reports be majority reports and not to submit it even if it means diluting the report down to something that's maybe not quite as good as it should be.
MR. HOLM: Thank you, because I was at that as well, the Public Accounts Committee thing. The member for Dartmouth East will also know that in very few provinces, if you were to actually look at the way the Public Accounts Committees function in most cases, we actually have a Public Accounts Committee system or did have - I haven't been sitting on it lately so I can't attest - that was able to do more in terms of investigation than is actually done in a lot of jurisdictions. I would also say that as members who are in the House know, the precedents of our House and our practices take precedence over what isn't written in the rules.
Certainly we have precedents where members from all three political Parties in this House have not accepted reports being advanced by committees. We have had that in former committees, I believe, reports of this Human Resources Committee. We have had the same thing, a colleague of Dr. Smith's who hadn't signed on and accepted the Select Committee on Education. We have those precedents too.
DR. SMITH: I'm not my brother's keeper.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, along those same lines. The last time there was dissent from a report of the Human Resources Committee it was, in fact, a Conservative who dissented, saying very much the same kind of things the NDP is saying now. But now that they're over on that side, I guess everything's fine. (Interruptions)
DR. SMITH: Is Mr. Steele bringing more information to impact on the report, or does he want to bring information to the next meeting? If it is deferred, what would that entail, bringing information forward?
MR. STEELE: As I understood it, Mr. Chairman, it was not so much the information as just a draft of my addendum, that is what I would bring forth for the members to consider. I agree with Dr. Smith, if the other members of the committee can agree to it, so much the better, but just based on what's been said in the past with the member for Dartmouth South beaking off in defence of the government, I don't anticipate the government will agree to what I have to say.
MR. SAMSON: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, having been here four years, yourself three years, I think we would both agree that we're not familiar with these addenda to the reports. I am curious, if you could, just before the next meeting, through staff, maybe provide us with examples of when this has taken place, what's been in those reports, what do they look like, just so that myself - and I'm sure that other than the member for Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley - and other members who haven't been here any longer than I have, and I imagine they're in the same boat of not being quite sure what these look like or what the rules around them are, so I would be quite interested in seeing that first, before we go anywhere with this at the next meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That certainly sounds like a good suggestion. I think we could have a better discussion on it at the next meeting if we have some information. We are not quite finished.
Our last issue is April 16th as a tentative date to bring in Christene Hirschfeld, Boyne Clarke, for intellectual property. I think we have bounced her along now for about eight months. Do we have any disagreements with that date at this point in time? April 16th. (Interruptions) We'll meet again.
MR. HOLM: Should we defer it until all full members of the committee are here? (Laughter)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please mark that date in your book or pass it along to the real members. Should we call this lady to bring her in on April 16th? (Interruptions)
MR. SAMSON: I'd wait until the March meeting before doing that.
MR. HOLM: The House will be in session then, in extended hours. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will contact her with that as a tentative date and we will confirm after the next meeting. Any other comments?
This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[The committee adjourned at 10:26 a.m.]