MR. CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps we could start. There seems to be altogether too much laughter in this room for a Human Resources Committee meeting so we will see if we can fix that. Perhaps we can start with Mr. Hendsbee and we will introduce ourselves.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for coming out today. You have an agenda before you and on it we will start with the appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. Mr. Hendsbee.
MR. DAVID HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend for appointment to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for the Farm Practices Board, Fred A. Walsh to be member. So moved.
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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Education, for the Colleges and Universities, Nova Scotia Advisory Board, I would like to recommend for appointment Robert W. Shaw, FCA, to be member. So moved.
1
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved, no discussion? We will go for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CECIL CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, I move the names of Kevin Gerrior, Norman Paupin, Maureen Serroul and George White, as members.
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. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Education, Youth Advisory Council, I would like to move Nicole F. Bemister and Ryan MacNeil as member/co-chairmen; Eric Proctor, Sarah Reeves, Brent Sherar and William Victor Szubielski, members.
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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Environment and Labour, Construction Industry Panel, Labour Relations Board, I would like to recommend for the following appointments: Peter E. Darby to be chairman/member; Gary Dean to be alternate management member; Kenneth H. Estabrooks, Dannie MacDonald, and Leo F. MacKay to be alternate labour members. So duly moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, under the Labour Relations Board, Nova Scotia, I would like to move the following names: Peter E. Darby as chairman/member; Gary Dean, Reid R. DeLong, Daniel J. MacLeod, and Donna VanBuskirk as alternate management members; Dennis G. Grant, Brian J. Matheson and Leo F. MacKay as alternate labour members. I so move.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion?
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: I have to admit that I was discussing something with my colleague here. Mr. MacKay was being proposed as what?
MR. CLARKE: Sorry, as an alternate labour member.
MR. STEELE: You are aware, Mr. Chairman, I think that that was, in fact, an error. He is being reappointed as a full labour member.
MR. CLARKE: You have Mr. MacKay as labour member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Duly noted, thank you very much. Mr. Downe.
MR. DONALD DOWNE: For clarification, Peter Darby is chairman of both of these committees and maybe it's just in substituting here and not understanding the background between Peter on the Construction Industry Panel. Not that I have any questions here, I was just trying to clarify the chairman of that as well as the Labour Relations Board. Maybe there is a tie-in I am just not aware of, but as chairman of both of those, I guess the question is, is that a normal practice? Number two, is there a double per diem for that?
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess I can answer the first. My understanding is that these are tied together and that is the reason - it's not a mistake, these are purposely brought forward this way. As far as the double per diem, we can take a look to see what does happen.
MR. DOWNE: Probably it has always been this way, I just wanted to clarify it. It caught my attention last night.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that having the same person as chairman of both is, in fact, a long-standing practice because the Construction Industry Panel legally and otherwise is a subset of the Labour Relations Board. My recollection is that the chairman is paid a fixed amount per year but then would be entitled, I think, to a per diem over and above that if he does the work of one or the other. So it would never be the case where he would be collecting two per diems for doing the same work because either he is doing Labour Relations Board work or Construction Industry Panel work, but since he could never be doing both at the same time, he would never get paid twice. That was my understanding but it is certainly a legitimate concern to raise.
MR. DOWNE: I understood the chairmen positions hold a $20,000 a year per diem. I guess the question was, is it a $40,000 per diem that Mr. Darby would be making, or $20,000 with the understanding that there is a crossover. I don't have a problem with the
individual here. I make it very clear that we are not opposing any names here but just a clarification. I think if Mr. Steele's comments are accurate, then it answers the question that he wouldn't be paid $40,000 but in fact $20,000 and used on both boards.
MR. STEELE: Mr. Chairman, maybe what I could suggest is that we could go forward and approve this and perhaps have committee staff just call and inquire and report back to the committee at the next meeting. Maybe Mr. Downe agrees that it is not enough to actually hold up the appointment today, but it should be clarified.
MR. DOWNE: I believe it should be clarified.
MR. STEELE: Clarified first?
MR. DOWNE: Oh no. I have no problem with the appointees here.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, if legal counsel is going to clarify that, we could come back to it, if that is to the satisfaction.
MR. STEELE: We will just note for the record that legal counsel has left the room to clarify that right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: To check the Statutes and see - yes, okay.
MR. CLARKE: Did you want to hold on that and just come back once you have the information?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to come back to that?
MR. CLARKE: It's a fair question.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait two or three minutes to see, or we could actually recess for three minutes or recess for five minutes.
MR. CLARKE: Why don't we keep going and come back. I am willing to wait for the vote.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Everybody is in agreement to continue? Okay.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, I move Allen Howell as alternate member (employer); Carol MacCulloch and Peter O'Brien as members (employer); Sheldon Andrews as member (employee); Maureen Pickup as alternate member (employee); and Betty Jean Sutherland as member (employee). So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? I will call for the question then. 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 Environment and Labour under the Resource Recovery Fund Board, I would like to make the appointment of T.H. (Tom) Donaldson to be a member. So duly moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion? I will call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Environment and Labour, Workers' Compensation Board - Members, I would like to recommend for appointment Mr. Elwood Dillman to be a management member. So duly 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. HENDSBEE: Mr. Chairman, for the Department of Health, Health Authority Districts, District 3, Annapolis Valley, I would like to recommend for appointment Mr. Jim Murphy to be member. So duly moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there 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 Health, Health Authority Districts, District 4, Colchester East Hants, I would like to recommend for appointment Elizabeth A. Stanfield to be member. So duly moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Does anyone call for the question? Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice for the Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia. I move the name of the Hon. Justice Thomas A. Cromwell as commissioner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? Hearing none, I call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. CLARKE: Continuing under the Department of Justice, for the Police Review Board, I would like to move the names of Marion Ferguson as alternate member and Eunice R. Harker as alternate member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved.
Mr. Steele.
MR. STEELE: Perhaps I should start with my usual comment that the standard for appointment to ABCs should be that we appoint the best qualified person from among the applicants. As an elected member of the Legislature, I have not been given enough information to determine whether these people are the best qualified from among the applicants. I would also like to note that the Police Review Board is one of those quasi-judicial tribunals that I think everyone now recognizes have to be dealt differently than some of the other agencies, boards and commissions. In fact, if the government is committed to changing the selection process under the terms of settlement of the Kaiser human rights complaint and I know the government is committed to making changes within a year but we're now two and one-half months since the Kaiser settlement and there's not a word to members of this committee about what changes are being contemplated. These appointments are being done in the same way they've always been done and it seems to me that the committee should really expect to be informed about when and in what way the selection process is going to be reformed.
The Police Review Board is a very important tribunal. It's the last step of appeal for police officers who are being disciplined or for citizens who are complaining against the conduct of police officers. It's extremely important. Are these two people the best qualified from among the applicants? We don't know. Not only that, but the little information that the members of the committee are given is very sketchy. For example, if you look at the - I guess it's called the Form "A", it's in a document in my book headed, "Appointment Background" and Question 3, which is a very important question is, "What qualifications are necessary to be a member of this ABC?"
That's a fairly straightforward question. What do you need to be, what do you need to have, what do you need to be able to do to be a member of the Police Review Board? But, what it says is, "The Board serves as a final level arbiter of public complaints against police member/forces; matters of internal discipline; and suspension of police members." That's not a description of the qualifications - that's a description of what the Police Review Board does. So even the sketchy information that we're given on this committee is not helpful.
I note as well that in the qualifications of Marion Ferguson, whom I know and have had occasion to deal with her before when we were both involved in the Workers' Compensation system, a very capable lawyer, but to give you an idea of the difficulty I have with this kind of thing and the lack of a statement of what the qualifications are, in her cover letter she notes that she has had no dealings with criminal law on either side - either on the defence or the Crown side so the legal work she does has no involvement with the police. She cites that in support of her application saying because she's had no involvement with this in 20 years she can't be in a conflict of interest - which I guess is true, but on the other hand is a lack of involvement with this area of law - is that a qualification or is that not a qualification? Ms. Ferguson seems to think that having no experience in this area over 20 years is a qualification, but we don't know because the members of the committee were not told.
I think this whole thing points out again the poor quality of the information that we're given as members of the Legislature. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Steele. Anyone else? The question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
MR. STEELE: Note for the record that I abstained.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So noted for the record. And also Ms. Maureen MacDonald.
MR. OLIVE: Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, Mr. Chairman, the Building Advisory Committee, Nova Scotia. David Bateman, member; Ralph Ferguson, member; Heather Robertson-Corrigan, member; Gary Ruitenberg, member; Gerald Sampson, member; Ed Thornhill, member; Ozzie Wile, member. So moved.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. 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. HENDSBEE: For the Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations Department for the Regional Assessment Appeal Courts, I would like to make a recommendation for the following appointments: for member of the Central Region, Steven G. Zatzman; member for the Eastern Region; H.F. (Boe) MacIntyre, Q.C.; member for Northern Region, J. Mark McCrea, Q.C.; member for the Southern Region, Mark A. Taylor. All duly moved.
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. CLARKE: The Department of Tourism and Culture for the Boxing Authority of Nova Scotia, I move the name of David Grace as member.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Any discussion? Call for the question. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
I believe, with your indulgence, we'll come back to Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia, Mr. Peter E. Darby, with regard to his remuneration.
MR. GORDON HEBB: I can't give you a complete answer in that remuneration is set by regulation, but there is only the one provision in the Act, really as Mr. Steele said, there's just the one provision in the Act that provides for the remuneration of the members of the board. The members of the construction panel is just as Mr. Steele said, a subset of the board. In that regard, and it probably would have been a little better if on the agenda the two had been reversed because you actually couldn't appoint people to the construction panel unless they were in fact appointed to the Labour Relations Board. It would have been an anomaly if you had approved, say, Peter Darby to be the chairman of the Construction Industry Panel and then turned him down under the second. The Act does specifically provide that the same person can be appointed as chairman for both. There's just the one provision in the Act dealing with remuneration for the members of the board; it doesn't talk about the members of the panel receiving any extra remuneration. Unless you saw the Order in Council that sets the remuneration, you wouldn't have the actual specific details, they're not set out in the Act. Basically, I am just confirming what Mr. Steele said.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully that satisfies the inquiry?
MR. DOWNE: I don't necessarily want to prolong the appointment or slow the process down because I think there are qualified people here. I was just curious to know if there was the double allowance, it might be something that could be double-checked by counsel for the next meeting just to have the clarification in the minds of the members who
are here. It might have been going on for years, and maybe that's the standard process, but it would be interesting to know that, and, with that, I have no problem supporting the members who are nominated here. I would like a further double-check on the clarification. I think Mr. Steele is right, but it would be interesting to see if, in fact, there has been any double accounting on that.
MR. HEBB: I will check that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Hebb, and that's something that we can have for the record for next meeting, to make sure that it's available for everyone. With that, I believe we have a motion on the floor for the Labour Relations Board of Nova Scotia. The names have been read, is there any reason to read them out again? Everybody's aware of where we are? Any other discussion? Hearing none, the question has been called. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
I believe that concludes the business with regard to appointments of agencies, boards and commissions for today. We still do have a couple of items on our agenda.
MR. OLIVE: Now that we have passed that, I would like to just emphasize for my own satisfaction whether or not - I know we are going to find out whether or not there is a double-pay here, sort of a double remuneration. It seems to me that if the Labour Relations Board and the Construction Industry Panel are one and the same positions, that in future times we should make that change to this first form. Both of them say, "Remuneration: Chair: $20,000/yr + $300/day + exp". If, in fact, that is not so, then it certainly is confusing. It is confusing to Don and it is confusing to me too, and I am sure Mr. Steele agrees. I mean, it may be a small thing but, you know, John Q. Public looks at it and says, well, is he getting $40,000, plus $300 a day, plus expenses for both jobs? So let's be aware of situations where there are double jobs and maybe only one salary.
[9:30 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Olive, if the three of you agree, far be it for me to step in the way. We will try to clarify that for the next time this comes about. I believe our committee business now comes to the committee report. Mora Stevens is going to assist us in that.
MS. MORA STEVENS (Legislative Committee Coordinator): I have gotten a few calls, actually, on the report from a couple of members, so I would just leave it up to them to sort of say what they told me. I am just here to do as you instruct, on this report.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I have gone through this and unfortunately didn't have a chance to put my thoughts in writing apropos, some potential changes which I would like to put before the Human Resources Committee. I am not completely satisfied with the report the way it is written. I would request, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that I be given an opportunity to do that and certainly will have it done before the next meeting so that the other members of the committee can review the comments that I would like to make and some recommended changes to the report.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That sounds like a good idea. I certainly would like for everyone to have ample time to review any changes that are made because I know this is a very important report to all caucuses.
MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that was, I guess, stayed from the last meeting which we didn't bring to a vote to accept that? So, obviously, I would be rescinding my motion because the report would be modified.
I only wonder, for the sake of facilitating, getting the report for review and for a vote, if it is possible to put a timeline on when recommendations or changes to the report should be submitted. Would that be reasonable, before the next meeting, if we are going to . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Would it be acceptable to say that all changes would need to be in the office within two weeks for consideration and review and, therefore, at the time of our next meeting everyone will have had a short period of time to review any suggested changes, and we could hopefully vote on the report at the conclusion of our next meeting?
MR. STEELE: Sure, seems reasonable.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have agreement on that? We will do that. Please, yes, try and make sure that all changes are in to this office within two weeks.
MR. DOWNE: The changes that are being proposed and written in, will that come back to all the committee members prior to the meeting so they have a chance to absorb the comments and the recommendations so they can analyze them? If that is the case, if it is two weeks to get them in to them, they would be then immediately sent that day back to the members so they would have another two weeks to be able to review those recommendations to come back to deal with it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and there may be a little less time than the two weeks.
MR. DOWNE: Well, whatever. They have their report and depending on how wide-ranging the recommendations of change are, at least it gives the members adequate time to prepare for the meeting.
MR. CLARKE: Just for that meeting, if staff would just send out a notice to that effect? We all get our e-mail and then everyone has it in writing when their deadline is, and when an expected reply. So, just for the technicality, I guess, I would rescind the motion that I put on the floor at the last meeting and will bring it forward at the next meeting where appropriate.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It's rescinded, thank you.
MR. OLIVE: Just for the edification of the members of the committee. Just to give you an example, on Page 9 of the report there is reference in a number of places to, " . . . on or before the advertised date for closing indicated in the advertisement," and it says " . . . including applications received after the advertised closing date, . . ." There is no advertised closing date. We took that away a long time ago. It's a small change, but it certainly is reflective of reports. That's the kind of thing I am looking at, I am not looking at major stuff here. It's just that I don't think you can write a report that has that in it when it's not true. That's just an example for the members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. STEELE: Members of the committee will recall at the last meeting I had indicated that I would be writing an addendum or a condition of concurrence or whatever the proper technical term is. I have written that up and I apologize for not circulating it in advance but I was only able to consult with my colleague this morning on it. We are in agreement on the text of what we'd like to add. I am going to circulate it now in the earnest hope that the other members of the committee might see their way to signing on, or not, as the case may be. I will be very clear, there's no way that I am going to sign this report without this being appended to it. I guess we could do this two ways, we could either take time now to read it and have the members indicate whether they can agree with it or not or they can take it away and we'll discuss it at the next meeting. This is the text that my colleague, the member for Halifax Needham and I have agreed we would like to add.
MR. CHAIRMAN: My personal preference would be that we took this away and came back after we've had some time to review it, if that's okay with the committee, rather than do anything today.
MR. STEELE: That would be fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So, everybody having a copy of this, it is something that we will deal with at our next meeting as well with regard to the annual report.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, given this submission, I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that we're going to get through next month's meeting with an agreement on this report. Just looking very quickly at this, I see a number of areas that I have some concern,
we won't go into them today, but given that fact maybe the timetable on having - this is, I presume, is either, what do you call it?
MS. STEVENS: A condition of concurrence.
MR. OLIVE: A condition of concurrence, is that what it's called? Or it's an alternative report in some sense, some of the information that's in there. I presume that we would have to vote on having an alternative report or an alternative section put in to this report, is that correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: A minority report?
MR. OLIVE: Yes, a minority report.
MR. STEELE: Let's be clear, Mr. Chairman, it's not a minority report. If we're going to call it a minority report it would be much longer. Much of what's in the draft report we can adopt, no problem, it's simply a straightforward factual description of what the committee did over the last year. So we're not doing a minority report in the sense of rejecting everything else that's in the draft report, but there's some commentary we think it is essential to add in order for the public to fully understand what this committee has been up to over the last year.
The clerk of committees can tell us, but I don't believe it's ever been the practice that the committee would actually vote on a condition of concurrence. If a member chooses to add it, they do, but Mora can clarify that. I can't imagine that we'd have a vote on whether I am allowed to say these things.
MR. OLIVE: No, no, I don't mean that. What I am looking for here is a clarification as to where in this report - it's one thing just to put it together, a page document and say this should be in the report, but where in this report, is it counteracting something in the report, is it adding something? If so, where is it adding it? There may be some things in here on further review that I can live with, but where does it fit and does it contravene something in here? In other words, are you saying on Page 9, Paragraph 2 begins, "Where a screening panel . . .", remove that and insert - is this what you're saying or are you just making some general, philosophical statements about how you feel this should work and how you believe that it doesn't work? There's a big difference between the two.
MR. STEELE: It goes after the report, after the signature page and it's intended to be a commentary on the rest of the report. It's not adding or amending anything that's in the report.
MR. OLIVE: So it's a commentary. Okay, that's what I wanted to know.
MR. STEELE: It's just added on at the end.
MR. CLARKE: I think we previously discussed this initially at the last meeting. One of the things I think with the annual report is to discuss and to report on the specifics of this committee and its outcomes. That is what we are presenting for public review. Political commentary, there are more than numerous forums for anyone to provide that commentary and I don't think our annual report for this committee is that forum. I agree if there's technical information that's incorrect as there have been some points that will be adjusted, so be it. But, I am sure the honourable member and members of his caucus will continue to use the forums that are available to them, whether the House or committee, to note their opinion, but I don't want a technical report to be subjugated to political commentary and there is political commentary in this documentation that's been presented and I am not going to accept political commentary and I wouldn't offer it up myself either for the annual report.
MS. MAUREEN MACDONALD: I think that we need to hear as well from the staff to the committee on what the past practice has been with respect to conditions of concurrence and minority reports both. I think that would be helpful for the discussion.
MR. HENDSBEE: Just for the benefit of us, reading through the document and not making any summations of it or opinions, but his terminology of external verification, there's no description and there's no explanation how that would work. I am kind of concerned, would that be subjugating or relegating the authority of this committee or minister's departments or legislation to an external verification process? I am really concerned about that particular aspect. There's no explanation of how it would work here.
MS. STEVENS: What we've done in the past that has been committee procedure, and I actually took some excerpts out of the 1994 Human Resources Committee Report when ABCs were first established with this committee, is conditions of concurrence like these or minority reports appear after the signature statement, the statement of submission - and I have a copy of all of this for all the members - a committee report is always distributed in its entirety to the committee for approval prior to it going to a printer. So these are attached after the signature statement prior to everyone signing off and then at the end, the report as a whole, is always voted on. That's the last thing that is done and then the signatures are attached. It's not as if the condition of concurrence is being voted on, but the report as a whole is being voted on, whether members approve all the editorial changes and everything like that. Not, specifically, are conditions of concurrence voted upon, but again, they would appear after if there are recommendations or a statement from the chairman concerning the committee, statement of submission and then conditions of concurrences. It's at the very end of the report.
MR. HENDSBEE: Just for clarification, does the committee vote on its inclusion in the report or is that something that the Opposition members may wish to have in the report and perhaps the government members don't approve of that particular content? How does
the approval of that be added into the report if we approve the report in its entirety but then again if there's a dissenting report or a minority report or condition of concurrence and it doesn't have the full satisfaction of the majority of the government side, how would that be included in the documentation?
MS. STEVENS: It's always been the right of any committee member to add in whatever they so choose if they have a condition of their own concurrence of signing that report, it's always been given to this office and then included but it's always the final vote on the whole report that the committee does. I have not known, in my experience in the office since 1989 anything that has really come up in conjunction with the condition of concurrence. Like anyone saying this is one thing I do not want in. The report is voted on in its entirety.
[9:45 a.m.]
I know we have had some committees - if there was like a subcommittee report that had been worked on by all members or all three caucuses and then that was given to the full committee membership, but as for minority reports or conditions of concurrences, no, it was just included.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, just as a point of clarification, I believe, from a legal aspect in conferring with Mr. Hebb, we won't be able to have all the information on the table today until we do some research. I do notice in the statement that we have, the old one, that everyone signed the initial report and then added something on. Now is it your intention to sign the original report and add this, or not sign the original report and add this?
MR. STEELE: My intention is to sign the original report because I don't think there is anything objectionable in the original report, it just doesn't tell the whole story.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. STEELE: This is our version of telling the whole story. So, certainly at this point, subject to any changes that might be made to the body of the report, that I would sign the full report and add this.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That was sort of for clarification so when we do our research we hopefully have all the details that we need. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Can I get something clarified?
MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll try.
MR. OLIVE: When Mora talks about the vote on the complete report, after everyone has signed it and before the condition of concurrence is attached, the report is voted on?
MS. STEVENS: No.
MR. OLIVE: Okay. So after everyone signed it, the condition of concurrence is attached, then HR vote on acceptance of the report, including the concurrence paper?
MS. STEVENS: What happens, the signature page is the last page to be signed, the statement of submission.
MR. OLIVE: Signed and/or approved?
MS. STEVENS: Yes. Well, actually, signed.
MR. OLIVE: Right.
MS. STEVENS: You physically sign it, that's the last thing. Once everything has been approved, and that would be with the conditions of concurrence or minority reports included in the report, as it would go to the printer the last thing that happens is that members will sign off because they have that final draft of exactly what it will look like, and then they sign the statement of submission.
MR. OLIVE: Are you asking, therefore, the government members to sign off on the condition of concurrence?
MS. STEVENS: No, it is on the report as a whole, not on the concurrence.
MR. OLIVE: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. STEELE: I did know, Mr. Chairman, last time, at last month's meeting that the last condition of concurrence, there was one from Alexa McDonough, one of my predecessors as the MLA for Halifax Fairview, but also from Mr. George Archibald, former member for Kings North. Reading it, I'm sure, will be instructive to the government members of the committee.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. So we will move on. (Interruption) That's right. We still have some discussion with regard to next meeting dates. The first one right now is April 16th, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. for intellectual property, and that is the topic that we have been putting off for some time now. Is that date all right for members around the table? Wonderful.
MR. HEBB: What day of the week is it?
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): Tuesday.
MR. DOWNE: Tuesday.
MRS. HENRY: It will be in the afternoon and the meeting will be in the morning.
MR. DOWNE: Wow. I have seen some pretty bizarre hours in the House. Subject to the House sitting, I guess.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would be subject to the House sitting. With regard to hours, there are a couple of people who aren't in this room who probably have more control over that than we do. It is hard to tell.
MR. DOWNE: If I may, usually in the morning, obviously each morning is pretty busy for all caucuses preparing for the House, and I haven't had a chance to discuss this matter with my colleagues, I don't know what their position is. Subject to their comments at the last session, the only thing I find is that it is very difficult to prepare and be at all these sessions. I will wait and see where they go. It's a two hour meeting.
MR. OLIVE: But why do we need two hours? Christene is the only one coming in, right? If she's the only one coming in why do we need two hours? Or, do we need two hours?
MR. DOWNE: You're going to need two hours probably with the recommended changes that are going to be there and whatever else is going to be, I don't know.
MR. OLIVE: She's going to make a presentation based on her recent experience in Ontario on the course that she went on, I understand.
MR. DOWNE: That's it, that's all . . .
MR. OLIVE: Basically, that's it and then that information we would consider in this whole process. So I don't know why we'd need two hours.
MR. STEELE: Perhaps we could limit Ms. Hirschfeld's presentation and discussion to one hour and then discussion and report to half an hour, making the meeting an hour and a half, or would the members prefer that the whole thing be done in one hour?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't believe we're going to have any discussion of the report on April 16th, that would be on April 30th. This is just going to be a committee meeting where we're hearing from a witness and we won't be doing additional committee business until April 30th, and at that point in time all recommendations will have made it through.
MR. STEELE: In that case, perhaps we just need one hour on April 16th. Is the committee alright with that? Maybe we could advise Ms. Hirschfeld accordingly.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do that. It certainly sounds as though there's agreement. Thank you very much. April 30th for our next meeting of appointments. We're adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:52 a.m.]