MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. Perhaps we could start by going around the table and introducing ourselves and what riding we represent. Mr. Hendsbee, perhaps we will start with you.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming out this morning. I would like to bring to your attention one memo that has been sent out, dated April 24th, to me with regard to appointments to the Board of Directors of the Trade Centre Limited. I will just read a line or so.
"It has been brought to my attention that there was a typographical error in the 'Form A' prepared respecting the appointment of Lois Dyer Mann to the above-noted Board.
With respect to the 'Term of Appointment', the duration should read 'two (2) years as director, and one (1) year as chair, . . .'"
I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of that correction or clarification.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: For a total of two years?
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: For a total of two years, yes. With that, I believe we will start the order of business of the day. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, Department of Economic Development, Trade Centre Limited, I so move Frederick R. MacGillivray as Director and President; M. Lois Dyer Mann as Director and Chair, as per your correction; and Peter Bryson, Q.C., David R. Chisholm, Hilliard Graves and George C. Moody as directors. So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: As the members know, the fundamental issue I have with the way this committee operates is that the members of the committee are not given adequate information to decide for themselves whether the people being put forward are the best qualified for the positions. That is just as true of these nominations as they are of nominations in the rest of the book and nominations that we get every other day that we sit here.
I would like to focus on a couple of these in particular. I'm not going to say anything with respect to Fred MacGillivray or Lois Dyer Mann or Hilliard Graves because those are reappointments and I'm not going to object to them being reappointed and, as I was saying earlier, before the meeting started, Mr. Graves formerly played for the Winnipeg Jets and anybody who played for the Jets has to have something good going for them.
I did want to remark, in particular, on a couple of these. In the guidelines for the Board of Directors of Trade Centre Limited, five qualifications are listed. For the record, I will just read them. It says, in answer to the question:
"What qualifications are necessary to be a member of this ABC?
Demonstrated experience in at least two (2) of the following competencies are considered appropriate for the Board of Directors to be fully effective:
(a) senior financial administration
(b) background/experience in sports
(c) background/experience in the hospitality sector
(d) creative/cultural, including the entertainment industry; and
(e) business ownership/entrepreneurship".
Okay, well that's fine, that sort of captures what the Trade Centre Limited does.
Now with respect to Mr. Bryson, it says that he qualifies in those competencies for the following: background/experience in sports; creative/cultural, including the entertainment industry; and business ownership/entrepreneurship. But when I look at the material that we
actually have in the book, when we look at the resumé that the committee is provided with, I'm really at a loss to see any of those things.
Mr. Bryson, who I know personally, is a good lawyer, but there is nothing in his resumé to indicate that he has a background in sports, there is nothing to indicate he has any background in the creative/cultural sector, including the entertainment industry, and he has spent his career, since graduating from university, as a lawyer in a downtown law firm, which is not exactly the same as business ownership and entrepreneurship. So I'm at a loss to understand why those qualifications are listed for Mr. Bryson unless there is further material that somebody in government has that we don't have, indicating his competency.
I did want to go on to talk about Mr. Moody but I just wonder if the member who proposed these nominations has any further information he can offer on how exactly Mr. Bryson fulfilled these competencies that are said to be required to sit on the Board of Directors of the Trade Centre Limited?
MR. OLIVE: No comment, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STEELE: That's the member who proposed them. I was thinking, surely to heavens he has something to say if I'm raising questions, saying there's a big hole in the information before the members today, and that is that it's claimed that he has these competencies and there's not one scrap of information in the material before us to indicate that he does have those competencies. I'm just wondering if the member who's putting his name forward as the best-qualified person can enlighten us as to what information he has to indicate that this person does have those competencies.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the member is fully aware that our job is to approve or not approve the names put before us at this committee, and through previous discussion is most likely fully aware that we do not have any additional information to what the member has.
MR. STEELE: I'm not the one putting this fellow's name forward. The member for Dartmouth South is putting his name forward, and he's declining to give any comment as to how this gentleman fulfills these competencies that he's supposed to have, which are not apparent from his resumé.
Let me move on then to George C. Moody, who is, of course, a former Cabinet Minister. Again, I'm not saying that Mr. Moody is not qualified for this position. That is not my point at all. My point is that there were 34 applicants for this job, 34. Out of that 34, coming to the top is a former Buchanan era Cabinet Minister. If he's the best qualified among the 34, fine. I will be first in line to nominate him and shake his hand, but as a member of this committee I do not have the information before me to indicate one way or another whether George Moody is the best-qualified person.
Again, in the answer to the guideline questions, Mr. Moody is claimed to have the following competencies - he even has one more than Mr. Bryson. He's claimed to have competency in the following: senior financial administration; background/experience in the hospitality sector; creative/cultural, including the entertainment industry; and business ownership/entrepreneurship. Now, Mr. Moody's resumé does indicate that he has, for many years, up until yesterday as a matter of fact, been the owner of a family-owned grocery store, which yesterday he sold to a Sobeys company - good for him - so he and his brother have operated that company, I think it's since 1966.
But I'm at a loss to see in his resumé where he has the other competencies that are claimed for him. Is the government claiming that he has senior financial administration because he was a Cabinet Minister in a government that nearly bankrupted the province? These Buchanan era Cabinet Ministers should be begging our forgiveness every single day for what they did to the province. We are still paying to get out of the debt that they racked up, and we will continue to pay for decades. My children will continue to pay for what people like George Moody, Neil LeBlanc, Ron Russell, George Archibald and John Buchanan did to this province.
Instead of him begging our forgiveness, he's being appointed to a position of some trust and authority, running the Trade Centre Limited in downtown Halifax. I just wonder, can the member for Dartmouth South, who is nominating him and is putting his name forward, indicate where in his resumé there's any information indicating that he has senior financial administration experience, background/experience in the hospitality sector or creative/cultural, including the entertainment industry? I wonder if the member would care to enlighten us on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, as was stated before, it's really not our job to debate the qualifications of the people who are here with regard to the qualifications of the people who were not selected, but it's to approve or not approve the names as per the information I was given when I took over this position.
MR. STEELE: What I'm saying here today is that the information to support the qualifications these people are supposed to have is not before us. It is simply not here. Any time a Buchanan era Cabinet Minister has their name put forward for a position, I would think the government would want to go out of its way to prove that this person was the best qualified from among those who applied. In this case there were 34 applications.
[9:15 a.m.]
I cannot in good conscience say that George Moody is the best-qualified person from among the 34, and frankly nobody else on this committee can either, unless they're simply following the marching orders given to them elsewhere. That's it. For those reasons, I can't possibly support those particular nominees.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. Any other discussion? Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. RUSSELL MACKINNON: Mr. Chairman, on Page 3 of that particular section - just before we get to George Moody - I think it applies to every candidate - it states, Question No.13, "It is my opinion as the Minister responsible for the ABC that from the candidates that applied to the position that this is the best qualified person to carry out the duties of this position." Then it's certified by the respective minister of the department. That in itself provides a legal onus to a different level than this committee. While I recognize some of the points that were made by my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, were fairly worthy and I respect where he's coming from, ultimately it is the minister and the government that are responsible.
I'm not going to speak on the first person he refers to. The second person, Mr. Moody, I've watched him represent his constituents and the province since 1978, until the last election. Quite frankly, and coming from an Opposition member I think you may find this a little ironic, but I believe that in his capacity he served this province with distinction. I have a lot of respect for his abilities, and I think his curriculum vitae speaks for itself.
That doesn't diminish the criticism that I, as an Opposition member, or someone who would be critical of the government in general, the Buchanan regime, and I think my criticisms are well-known on that, but as an individual candidate for this particular position, I believe that Mr. Moody would serve this agency very well. I think we're fortunate to have people who are willing to serve with the amount of energy and talents that he has, and, still, all the commitments that he has back in his own community, to the family business and his family and the community. I know he's been very active in the community on a number of sports-related activities, and the community at large, having served as a Minister of Health and Fitness.
I think that's where I and my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, would deviate in our thought processes. I'm not so sure he fully appreciates the value of some of that public service. He's just looking at the political skew, although I find it refreshing to see that Mr. Moody and Dr. Hamm have made up. It's good to see when a family has a little squabble that they do . . .
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: You were doing good there for a minute.
MR. MACKINNON: It's good to see that they've made up. That augurs well for any family.
DR. JAMES SMITH: Are you saying it's the opposite of the Night of the Long Knives, Russell? Are you going that far?
MR. MACKINNON: Not quite, because we don't know how sharp they are. Anyway, I have no problems. I believe my colleague, Dr. Smith, would support Mr. Moody's appointment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Would all those in favour . . .
MR. STEELE: I take my colleague's point there about his involvement in sport. I just note in passing that involvement in sport is the one qualification that is not being cited in support of Mr. Moody's application.
MR. MACKINNON: He has so many qualifications that I believe you've overlooked, it wouldn't matter which one, you will still find something, supposing it was a piece of lint on the shoulder of his jacket. You would still find something wrong.
DR. SMITH: On this, I have the list of the previous board. I would just like to point out that obviously there's a new direction desired here, and there's been quite a change. We have people, I know of several on that board, who wanted to be reappointed. I can only assume they applied and were rejected, so they were deemed not to be the best appointments. There are five or six of them there on the old list that have not been reappointed. So this is a new direction. We will be watching carefully to see what this new direction will be and look for bigger and better things. The fact that some of them might have been involved with some Party politics maybe has something to do with it. So a bit of house cleaning has happened here, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Let me just say in passing that it doesn't surprise me to hear that the representative of the other Party that's cemented by patronage is supporting nominees like this.
DR. SMITH: There will come a day, Graham, somewhere in some province again . . .
MR. MACKINNON: Keep working on your thesis.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe our discussion has completed, so we'll call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MRS. MURIEL BAILLIE: Mr. Chairman, I so move for the appointment of the Department of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University Board of Governors, Scott McCrea, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion?
DR. SMITH: I would like to support that appointment. I don't know him as a friend but I know of him personally on many occasions. I think this is a good appointment and I would like to congratulate the committee for bringing a person of this calibre and commitment to the community forward.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. Any further discussion? The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MRS. BAILLIE: I so move for the Department of Education, Youth Advisory Council, Arien Gough, Member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Environment and Labour, Board of Examiners for Certification of Blasters, Arthur Baxter as a member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? The question's been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Also for the Department of Environment and Labour, the Fuel Safety Board, Frederick L. Chalmers as the Chairman and member; and John McCormack, William Moody and David Muise as members. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Also with the Department of Environment and Labour the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, Garry Randall as an alternate member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion?
MR. MACKINNON: If I could ask one question on that, not that I'm opposing, but just out of curiosity. With regard to Garry Randall, I notice he's been supported by a particular organization. It's quite a turn of events, what transpired that all of a sudden they're supporting Garry Randall's appointment, whereas in the past they've continuously opposed it? Is there some information that we may have on that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a question that I don't believe this committee is capable of answering.
MR. MACKINNON: I'm just flagging it with the committee.
MR. OLIVE: He is a labour rep, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he is.
MR. MACKINNON: Well, I know he's going to be a labour rep but, continuously up to this point, he never has been.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Perhaps he has the blessing of the NDP caucus. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Also with the Department of Environment and Labour, the Occupational Health and Safety Appeal Panel, Andrea Gillis and Hugh MacArthur as labour representatives.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion?
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to Mr. MacArthur, my experience with the Department of Labour is you would have active members of both management and labour in the marketplace and I notice that Mr. MacArthur is now retired from Devco. Is this a change of policy that we're going to rely on the resources of people who are retired out of the marketplace? It's quite a shift because that was one of the criteria, unless he's active in another way that I'm not aware of. I noticed the address was out in New Waterford, when he just lives about a half a mile up the road from me, so I mean his address is not even correct unless he has moved again.
DR. SMITH: I said he was NDP, anyway.
MR. MACKINNON: Aside from his politics . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you don't have any problem with that?
MR. MACKINNON: Oh, no, I'm used to it. You know, a socialist is a socialist. I mean, you just take it for what it's worth, but I raise that because that's a legitimate concern, not only with this particular board. It's an issue that the Labour Council persistently harped on any time an issue for an appointment came up, that you would want somebody who was active in the industry or the marketplace and not somebody retired because you wanted to keep the issues and the various things current. So if it's still the wish of the government to proceed, I think you may find that you would be setting a precedent here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: I don't know this Mr. MacArthur, but it seems to me that we had a discussion last fall about whether people who are retired still have the mental capacity, and ability and experience to provide advice to the government regardless of what their politics are. I would suggest that it's probably - I don't know if you're inferring that or not, honourable member. I don't think you are . . .
MR. MACKINNON: No, not at all.
MR. OLIVE: . . . but the fact is - I think it's clear to state, you know, for the benefit of the committee - that there is a large number of very highly qualified people who, professionally, have performed very well throughout their careers for the various industries as related to labour. The fact that this particular individual may be retired should not cast aspersions on his ability to provide direction and guidance to policies of the government. So I would, certainly, and I'm sure my colleagues support any opportunity where we can get somebody with this kind of experience to serve further the Province of Nova Scotia and our labour issues.
MR. MACKINNON: Just a short snapper on that. First of all, at no point in time, and I think the record will show that, was there an attempt to cast aspersions, but the member for Dartmouth South usually embroils himself in this parochial politics. The fact of the matter is that by doing what you're doing, you are setting a precedent, and that's fine if that's what the government wants to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so on a future day I would hope that the Tory caucus will not come back, as it did in the past, and flag this issue and I'm speaking from experience.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: Finally, Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Environment and Labour, the Well Construction Advisory Board, Earle C. MacDonald, a member at large, and I so move.
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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Community Services, the Housing Authority for Cape Breton Island, I would like to nominate Maria Lamey to be a member. I so duly move.
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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Community Services, the Housing Authority for Eastern Mainland, I would like to nominate Duncan MacDonald to be a member. I so duly move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been 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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Community Services, for the Kings Regional Rehabilitation Centre, I would like to move the following names as members: Donald C. MacDonald and Gerry Wentzell. I so duly move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved. Any discussion? The question is called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Community Services, for the Round Table on Child Care, I would like to move the following names: Lila Hope-Simpson, a representative of the private administrators; Steve Machat, to be representative of the parents; and LeeAnne Marchand, a representative of the non-profit administrator. I so duly move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleague, the member for Halifax Fairview, would certainly agree that Ms. Lila Hope-Simpson is appointed for her qualifications and not for her politics.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I would just like to say, any time I hear a factious comment from a fellow member, I just think that because this is recorded and on the record it needs a response. Until I walked in here this morning I didn't know what Lila Hope-Simpson's politics were. The other members who are always acutely conscience of Party ties that people have apparently are aware that she may have - they're not even sure - but she may have been a candidate for the NDP in a previous election, although they don't remember when or at what level. I just think it's just silly for people to make factious comments like that about somebody who appears to be as well qualified as anybody else. Is the member suggesting that maybe her politics should enter into this or that he wants them to enter into this? Why would he even raise this if he doesn't think that it's somehow relevant, when what we're trying to do in this Party is take politics out of the process, that people in the other Parties relentlessly try to insert politics back into it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. 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. HENDSBEE: For the Department of Community Services, Social Workers, Board of Examiners, I would like to move the name of Elizabeth Whelton as a member. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 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. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health, Advisory Commission on AIDS, Dr. William C. Hart and Leslie Hickey as members. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion. Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: I would just like to add a word of support and recognition. I think it is important that the committee know that Dr. Bill Hart has been a very strong person on issues relative to AIDS in this community, and it's good to see his name here and that he is involved. He's an international person and he served under our administration. I would just like to recognize that, I guess, for the committee, that we have international people here on this committee and anybody who's met him would know that he's not only a nice person but he's highly qualified. So I compliment the committee for recommending him to continue in this work.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for those comments. The question is called. 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, the Review Board under the Hospitals' Act, I so move Dr. Lawrence Buffett, Dr. Diane McIntosh and Dr. Paul Reynolds as members. I so move.
MR. SPEAKER: So moved. Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: The Review Board under the Hospitals' Act is the board that decides whether or not people can be detained involuntarily in psychiatric facilities. I know one of the problems they've had over the past number of years is getting a psychiatrist willing to serve on the board. So it's really wonderful to see Dr. Buffett being reappointed and two new psychiatrists being appointed to this board. It will be good for the board to have that many qualified psychiatrists serving. I did want to note in passing though, that the Review Board under the Hospitals' Act is one of the tribunals that was an issue in the Archie Kaiser human rights complaint. The government promised back in January that within a year there would be a new process for the very important tribunals like this board and here we are four months later and we haven't heard one single word from the government about what's going on, what's going to happen, how the process is going to change, when it's going to change. It's about time we started seeing the government follow through on the commitments that it made in the Kaiser settlement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion?
DR. SMITH: I just wanted to say that I do recall that there were commitments made in this area and the honourable member for Halifax-Fairview and I often speak on these two committees, this one being the Review Board under the Hospitals' Act. These are extremely important. There's a different type of system here. This is crucial to the basic human rights and the access to care and protection of personal safety issues for all Nova Scotians relative to this. These are extremely important. I too would say, if there's something in the works that will strengthen this process, that the government keep its commitment. I'm not clear, I
couldn't recite chapter and verse what that commitment was, but I know it was to strengthen this process and to have it be more open. So this committee was being treated differently, along with the other one of similar nature, than the other committees before us.
While I don't always support Mr. Steele in some of his initiatives, in this one I find myself continually wanting to speak on this issue to keep it on the agenda. This is not politics here; this transcends - the person from my riding, I think, is just a strong Tory. I haven't checked the donation list, but I don't care. I know him as a psychiatrist, and he's a great person with a long-term history and interest in this. This is extremely crucial. There have been people on these boards occasionally who have not worked, and when they're on there, I will assure you it is a disaster. I will end my comments with that. If there's anything we can do to move the process along, Mr. Chairman, I think, on your behalf and as a committee, that we should do that to ensure that these appointments continue to be the high standards. I feel that we are passing very high standards here today and that we maintain this. But these are crucial.
MR. OLIVE: If I may just echo the last comments that Dr. Smith had mentioned. The government has recognized the concerns of this committee and I believe the honourable Michael Baker, Minister of Justice, has committed to a review, and that will be forthcoming. I think it's important to note, and Dr. Smith just mentioned it, that the bar certainly is at a very high level with these three appointments. I would suggest it's quite indicative of the seriousness with which the government takes this particular board and others that this committee has discussed. I suspect that other members of the community, both medical and lay people, will also consider that this is a step in the right direction prior to the submission by the Minister of Justice to government as a result of the previously stated review.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm very pleased that all three Parties agree these are good appointments. With that, I call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MRS. BAILLIE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Justice, Law Foundation of Nova Scotia, Board of Governors, I move John S. McFarlane, Q.C. for Chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. The question's been called. 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 Natural Resources, the Primary Forest Products Marketing Board, Walter MacAlpine, Chair and member at large; David C. Clark, member; and Jonathan Michael Porter and Stephen Read as members and alternates.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion?
MR. MACKINNON: A small point, the last member on the board is obviously - he's a gentleman I know. He's from my constituency and is a very successful businessman, and I know he will bring some pretty good insights into the process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that endorsement. Any further discussion? The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
That concludes the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions for today. We will move on to another order of business, which is submissions for the draft annual report.
MR. OLIVE: Just regarding my memo dated April 12th, I presume that all members of the committee have had a chance to review it. It's only housecleaning. I don't believe there's anything there of any controversy. If there is, I would certainly entertain any discussion or any question on my comments on those items 1) through 5). Like I say, I believe it's just housekeeping. So I would submit these as potential changes to the committee report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So is that a motion that these changes be adopted?
MR. OLIVE: It is a motion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on the motion?
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): These were distributed two weeks ago.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, these had been distributed two weeks ago.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I did read it two weeks ago when I got it. It wonder if could just have a minute to go over it again.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, we will take two minutes for everyone to refresh their memories on the information in front of them.
[9:41 a.m. The committee recessed.]
[9:43 a.m. The committee reconvened.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would anyone like any additional time to review the changes that have been recommended?
MR. STEELE: I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. In item 2) there's a reference to unnecessary agencies, boards and commissions, and I wonder if the member could refresh my memory about which ABCs have been deemed by the government to be unnecessary.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the question. I think where legislative changes have been made in the last couple of years that no longer required an agency, board or commission in support of that legislative change, that would probably be the most obvious example of where the board is no longer required and, basically, unnecessary. That would be an example and that's what that would cover.
MR. STEELE: Can you think of a specific example? I'm just trying to go back over the last couple of years and think of one that was deemed unnecessary.
MR. HENDSBEE: The Apple Maggot Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which always springs to mind.
MR. RONALD CHISHOLM: I think that's still there.
MR. OLIVE: I can't right now, honourable member, but I can certainly provide that information, if you so wish.
MR. STEELE: Sure, but I don't mean to hold this up, I just wasn't sure what that was intended to cover. I have no objection to these five points as written.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any other discussion on the motion? I will call for the question.
MR. STEELE: What question are we voting on?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether we are going to accept the changes that were put forward by Mr. Olive. That would be the April 12th memo with what are considered mostly housekeeping issues.
MR. MACKINNON: I wonder if the honourable member for Dartmouth South would provide a little more clarification on item 5), the advertising process. I know that was always an issue with us.
MR. OLIVE: We did, if you recall, have a discussion about whether or not the cut-off date that was in the ads in the paper, for example, allowed ample opportunity for people to apply. Many didn't see it. By the time members responded to requests from their constituents as to when they were coming out because they wanted to apply, many situations arose where in fact the date had passed and it was too late. I think as a committee we decided that we might be losing out on the opportunity to have qualified people apply strictly because of a date. That was the main reason. So we, as a committee, decided that having the date there was more of a negative than a positive in ensuring that we had broad applications from across the private sector. So that's why we took it out. All I'm suggesting is that it would not be correct to leave any reference to an advertised date for closing in a report when, the majority of the year, we didn't have an advertised date. I think that happened in the first year we were here.
[9:45 a.m.]
MR. MACKINNON: That would not preclude, Mr. Chairman, the requirement for having an ad in at least once a year.
MR. OLIVE: It has nothing to do with the number of ads. It is very specific to the fact that there's no longer a cut-off date in the ad. I think the ads still run every six months. That doesn't change the number of ads, member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does that clarify your concern, Mr. MacKinnon?
MR. MACKINNON: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is called to accept the changes suggested in the April 12th memo by Mr. Olive. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
We have some additional information, which is a condition of concurrence submitted by Mr. Graham Steele and Ms. Maureen MacDonald. Perhaps we could ask Mr. Steele for some discussion on this.
MR. STEELE: It has been discussed at a previous meeting, Mr. Chairman, and I don't have anything to add to what I've said before, these are points that we think need to be made. If the Human Resources Committee is going to issue a report, we just didn't feel that it was
right to issue it without stating these concerns. I think members have had a chance to look at it at a previous meeting, and I welcome anyone else who is willing to sign on.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we handle this by way of a motion to include this.
MR. STEELE: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's a matter of the vote of the committee about whether this is included or not. For example, the majority can defeat it. The majority can defeat our intention to say, okay, we sign on to the report but only on this condition. It somehow doesn't seem right to me that the majority could vote on whether we get to say what we want.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. HENDSBEE: My concern on this is in the second paragraph, ". . . we cannot sign on to a Committee report . . ." If they don't wish to sign the report, this should not even be attached to the report. If they cannot concur with the report, then so be it. If they wish to circulate it through their own resources, that's their prerogative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hendsbee. Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: We've all had time to have a look at this condition of concurrence. What's in here is an ongoing regurgitation, I guess, of comments that are made at just about every meeting by the members from the NDP caucus, which is basically aimed at discrediting the process set up by the Legislature that guides the direction of the Human Resources Committee. Every meeting, Mr. Chairman, you do have to remind members of the committee, all members of the committee some days, that, in fact, we are not here to get into the nuts and bolts of what we do here and what's presented here, but merely to review the names as submitted and vote either in favour or against them.
This condition of concurrence is a political document. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the committee report, as being presented, is an accurate description of what happened here. The report, in fact, is an accurate description of what happened here. This is only political rhetoric. It adds nothing to the report other than putting a political spin, which we hear at every meeting and, quite frankly, I've heard it enough. It adds nothing to the value of this report. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you and other members of the committee that this condition of concurrence not be attached to the committee report of the Human Resources Committee. I would go one step further and suggest to you that if the honourable members from the NDP caucus wish to have this as a public document, they do so through their caucus office and get the publicity that they seek through this document that way and not use the Human Resources Committee as a political football. Having said that, they can sign on this committee report or not sign on it, but I would suggest that this condition of concurrence not be attached to the committee report in its final copy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: I just wanted to remind the committee members that the last time this committee issued a report there were two conditions of concurrence, one from the then Leader of the NDP and one from George Archibald saying in substance exactly the same thing that we're saying in this, which is that this committee is a rubber stamp for decisions made elsewhere. So any criticism the member cares to level against the NDP, he's levelling against George Archibald as well and that's his prerogative. But I say again, Mr. Chairman, it's not the committee's place to vote on whether the members can attach a condition of concurrence to the annual report. It simply is not something that should be voted on by the committee because what that would be doing is allowing the majority to dictate to the minority what they're allowed to say and that, I would suggest to you, is not in keeping with the past practice of this committee or democracy for that matter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Steele, I sit here and I have opposing views on both sides of the table. It seems like one of the ways to solve the problem would be to make a motion and vote on the motion.
MR. STEELE: But how can you have a vote on whether we're allowed to dissent from the majority report because then the majority always gets their way and gets to suppress the legitimate views of a minority? How is that democratic?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, under no condition are we indicating that you do not have the right to dissent. What we are saying and what I am saying is that you do not have the right to take what is otherwise a factual account of this committee and thwart its interpretation through political rhetoric which we've heard over and over again. You can say whatever you like about what you don't like about this committee. You can say it through your caucus office and get all the press you want and, you know, that's what you do and that's what you do well, but the fact is you don't have the right on this committee to bend and write a document that clearly indicates that what this committee does is not in accordance with any rules or guidelines or direction as set down by the all-Party committee of the provincial Legislature and we have that here.
We have clear direction on what we are required to do and you are sticking your thumb, or your nose up, or whatever, at that legitimate process and you don't have the right to do that. You do have the right to make the comments. If we vote, Mr. Chairman - and I'm not putting anything in your mouth here, but if in fact we do vote - on whether or not this is attached, that is all we're voting on, not on your right to have a dissenting opinion. You can have that dissenting opinion outside that door any day of the week, but you don't have the right to have it as an attachment to a legitimate, duly constituted committee report.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, is there any precedent from any committee of the Legislature for the majority of the committee voting on whether to include a condition of concurrence? Has that ever been done before, that's all I want to know, or are we breaking new ground here?
MR. OLIVE: Is there anything to state we can't do it? Let's ask the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything saying we cannot vote on this that you're aware of, Mr. Hebb?
MR. GORDON HEBB: No, it would be a matter of record whether there was, in fact, a vote in the past. I have no idea what the answer to that question is.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Dartmouth South knows he's asking the wrong question because this committee, like the Legislature, is ruled by the Rule Book. This is not explicitly addressed in the rules and, therefore, the next line is the usages and precedents of the House. If we are going to do this, then it has to be on the basis that there is a precedent for having a majority on the committee vote on whether a member of the Opposition is allowed to attach a condition of concurrence. Those are the rules and I insist that if we're going to have a vote on this, that we do it on the basis of a legal opinion that there is precedent for that in this Legislature.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could ask legal counsel. It would appear that it is the responsibility of this committee to determine what goes in an annual report from the committee and the work that it has carried out in the previous months. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that if the committee is responsible for the content of the report, we have opposite opinions here, it would seem the only way to move forward would be to make a motion, vote on the motion and move along in that direction.
MR. STEELE: But there's no precedent for that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there another way to solve the problem with regard to differing opinions?
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, there's another recent experience in regard to a minority report. Recently, Voluntary Planning, through its non-resident property owner review, had a majority report come out, but with one dissenting member that had a minority report and he provided his report separately. He did not sign on to the major report, and that's how that was handled. There was not an addendum, there wasn't an attachment to the main report, it came out as a separate item.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hendsbee. Mr. MacKinnon.
MR. MACKINNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have watched with a little bit of intrigue here how the mind of the member for Halifax Fairview operates. I raised the issue before about the Department of Labour appointment, about having people current in the marketplace. That's a policy decision of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, and I raise that in fairness to labour and although the government policy position has changed here today, ironically, the member for Halifax Fairview supported that shift contrary to the policy processes of labour, and yet he's asking to take a diametrically opposing position through this issue of concurrence.
Perhaps as a way to help resolve the impasse, we could refer this to the Special Committee on Assembly Matters to deal with, if it's not like it's the end of the earth to put this off for another few weeks. I would suggest that's an all-Party committee. I sit on that committee and it's a committee that could very easily deal with this matter and perhaps deal with some additional points from other members. Well, the member for Dartmouth South is saying no, no. I mean he's close-minded on anything unless it's within partisan politics.
Well, it's not just this committee, the Public Accounts Committee, I mean there are other reports; there have been reports in the past with dissenting opinions attached and supported by the Progressive Conservative caucus mind you, and I think referred to some rather able members who sat as chairpersons of various committees, one, in particular, the Public Accounts Committee. So I think the member for Dartmouth South may be genuine in his intent, but I think he's lacking in his experience on a lot of what has transpired before the House in previous years.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Smith.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to know as a committee member how I can disassociate myself from this statement - the condition of concurrence? When I look at the other conditions of concurrence that have been filed, and my question would be at that time whether those persons had signed on the main report, or if the conditions of concurrence were circulated with the report. So we're talking about the mechanism, but I agree with the member for Dartmouth South, there are some good points in the current condition of concurrence that would be signed by the members for Halifax Fairview and Halifax Needham, but they've turned it into a political document that, really, they know very well that Party members of the Liberals and the Conservatives just can't support.
So if they want to make a political statement, I agree with the member for Dartmouth South, let them make it through their caucus office. If they have some substantive measures, which they have there in a couple of their points, why would they have turned it into a political document? So, therefore, I want to disassociate myself from this, and how do I do this as a committee member? I don't care for minority reports and all the other things (Interruption) Well, I certainly won't sign it, that's for sure. Do you think I'm stupid? I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid. I don't know why they would turn this into a political document
that is just really challenging members to vote it down or disenfranchise themselves from it. They've made it impossible for us to support it even if there are some good points in there.
[10:00 a.m.]
I'm reading the other ones on McDonough - even McDonough, I don't know who wrote it for her but it's really quite nice - and Archibald. They haven't stooped to the level of politics that these two members have today. That's my problem.
MR. HENDSBEE: Plus they also signed the report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. Mr. Olive.
DR. SMITH: Did they sign the report?
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that the member for Halifax Fairview is not going to prepare or submit a motion to have this attached for whatever reason. I would like to make a motion, if I may, if I'm in order, that the condition of concurrence not be attached or associated directly with the Human Resources Committee report. I would qualify it by saying that if the honourable member for Halifax Fairview wishes to make this a public document in protest, that being the condition of concurrence, he certainly can feel free to do so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, just from the Rules and Forms of Procedures of the House of Assembly, we have Section 61(1), "All Questions before Committees shall be decided by a majority of voices, including the voice of the Chairman, and whenever the voices are equal the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote." The second part of that is, Appeal to the House from Committee decision: "all decisions of the Committee may be appealed to the House and such appeal shall be dealt with without debate."
Using those sections for guidance, it appears that a motion would be in order to deal with the condition of concurrence. We do have a motion on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely crazy. Now we're ruling today, because nobody can cite any precedent for this, for the first time in the Nova Scotia Legislature, the majority gets to decide if a dissenting report is attached to the committee report. Now, the condition of concurrence says that we will sign on to the main report, but there's something that we want to add. I understand why these two Parties don't want these things said, because the truth hurts, and both of them are cemented together by patronage and have used appointments to agencies, boards and commissions as a way of rewarding their friends, and we are all suffering for it. Archie Kaiser fought it for seven years and won. The attitude today is exactly the same as it was before the Kaiser settlement.
Mr. Chairman, your ruling is, if I may say, absurd. (Interruptions) This committee - Mr. Chairman, I wish the member for Cape Breton West and the member for Cape Breton South could find one-tenth of the anger for issues like appointing the best-qualified people or eradicating child poverty or saving transition houses that they save for things like whether I should be called to order or not. This committee is ruling today that the majority can decide whether an Opposition member can issue a dissenting report. You may be in the majority today, but tomorrow you won't be. Some of you will be at home after the next election. Some of you will be in the Opposition, if not now, in the future. And you are all going to regret this. You are all going to regret this. (Interruptions)
Mr. Chairman, I understand why both of these Parties want to oppose this. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Steele. Order, please.
DR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, when we look at what the socialists have done across this country - Ontario and other provinces, mostly it has been B.C. - for this member to sit here and speak this way is personally offensive to me. Also, the misrepresentations that he's made before this committee on the Archie Kaiser situation - he's done it time and time again. That's part of the problem. I'm interested and that's why I addressed my comments (Interruptions) You have done that repeatedly, and you know what you've done.
MR. STEELE: No, I don't.
DR. SMITH: And you've done it here again this morning.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, the member says I misrepresented something, but he can't say what it is. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. I believe we have certainly had adequate discussion on the question.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I want it to be on the record that I am being shut down here, and my dissenting report is being voted down by the majority. That is . . .
DR. SMITH: You can take it and do what you want to with it.
MR. STEELE: That is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. This is a perversion of democracy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might be able to just make a clarification for my own, it's a condition of concurrence to be added to the committee report that is being voted on here, not a dissenting report put out by your Party.
MR. OLIVE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Is there any further business with regard to the annual report?
MS. STEVENS: All that happens next is those changes that were approved today will be added. When the second draft does come out, it has to be edited and it will be prepared then for members' signatures. So they will get another look at what it will look like with a cover and things like that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I guess the final issue of business is our next meeting date, which is May 28th from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. It will be a regular meeting for agencies, boards and commissions.
Is there any further business of the committee? Hearing none, we stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 10:06 a.m.]