MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe we can call this meeting of the Human Resources Committee to order. A waiver of notice had gone out - where this is a special meeting - last week. The unanimous consent of the committee is required for us to meet and waive the one week notice. With Mr. Samson's form in, we currently have unanimous consent to hold this committee meeting. My understanding is that we still need a recorded vote.
MRS. DARLENE HENRY (Legislative Committee Clerk): Yes, that is how it has been done in the past.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is how it had been done in the past. So it's a recorded vote on the, "I am in agreement of Form 'A'".
MRS. HENRY: Yes, Dr. Harry Poulos and Michael D. Teehan, MD, FRCPC.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We need someone to move those two names and then we will have a recorded vote on them.
MR. TIMOTHY OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Justice, Review Board Under the Criminal Code, I so move Dr. Harry Poulos, and Dr. Michael D. Teehan, as members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So moved. Is there any discussion? Mr. Samson.
1
MR. MICHEL SAMSON: Mr. Chairman, it's one year ago when most of us, I guess, were sitting in our homes getting a phone call from this committee to have an emergency telephone conference to deal with the very same board, again, where the minister found himself without the proper complement on this board in order to carry out these hearings. I would point out to members, who may not appreciate the importance of this board, that this is a quasi-judicial board that deals with people and assesses them; accused persons who have been found not criminally responsible because they suffer from a mental disorder.
This board is to assess them to determine if they should be released from the facility that they are in, or if they should be kept in there for a longer period of time. Needless to say, this is an extremely important function. Yesterday or the day before when I asked the minister, the minister claimed that it was just a scheduling conflict, whereas the fact was that he allowed, once again, members and appointees to this board, their appointments, to lapse.
Look at Dr. Poulos, for example, who sent a letter in on January 23rd of this year to Alison Scott, saying that he wanted to have his name reappointed to this board. The second one, I believe, was sent in in early March. Needless to say, the minister has had ample opportunity and Alison Scott has had ample opportunity to make these necessary appointments.
Mr. Chairman, I'm curious if you have been given any specific reason as to why the Department of Justice did not take care of having these names approved rather than waiting until the last minute, and because of a scheduling conflict we find ourselves, again, having to hold these emergency meetings in order to get these appointments through? I'm curious if you've been given any excuse or any reason as to why these appointments weren't made in the normal fashion, so that a full complement existed on this important board?
MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been given the same information as the rest of the committee members. You and I have the same information with regard to this matter.
MR. SAMSON: That being the case, I'm wondering if it's possible that there be some sort of motion passed by this committee that some sort of letter or notice be sent out to all government departments indicating that we fully expect them to make their appointments or reappointments in a timely fashion so that this committee is not forced to meet on an emergency basis in order to deal with appointments because they have lapsed.
I believe Nova Scotians expect a responsible government to continue the smooth operations of its committees and to make sure that there is a proper complement on those committees so they can function as required, and continually see these instances. Many times before we've seen where appointments need to go through because there are not enough members to make quorum on some of the committees and the importance of getting those appointments through in a timely fashion.
With that, being as I proposed it, I would move a motion that the chairman of the committee be asked to write to all government departments, a reminder, if nothing else, of the importance of getting their appointments in in a timely fashion to ensure that all committees have the proper complement, the proper quorum, and that they can continue to operate in a proper fashion. I would so move that the chairman write that letter.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your comments and the discussion, but we currently already have a motion on the floor. If you would like to vote on the motion that's on the floor, then the floor would be open to you to further that discussion and perhaps put that motion forward at that time.
MR. SAMSON: Sure, if that's the means of procedure you wish to follow, that's fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I recall in my first meeting I had three motions going, so I'm trying not to do that anymore. Any further discussion? Mr. Steele.
[9:15 a.m.]
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few thoughts. I realize that something similar happened last February 2001. At that time it seemed to be, if I remember rightly, a default in the timeliness of putting appointments forward, but the minister has given a different explanation for this one. I just see this as quite different.
The minister in the Legislature, and Alison Scott in her letter of May 17th, point out that the reason why this has arisen is not a scheduling conflict, but a conflict of interest. It's just a fact of life in Nova Scotia that we have relatively few psychiatrists and it's not at all difficult for the two psychiatrists currently serving on the boards to find themselves in a conflict of interest in the sense they may themselves have already treated the people who are coming before them for a hearing or have had some other contact with the person coming forward for the hearing and the minister has given that explanation, which I accept, that this is not something that was foreseeable until these hearings were scheduled. We also have to be mindful of the consequences of not approving these appointments.
After receiving Alison Scott's letter of May 17th, I, through the Committees Office, made a further inquiry with respect to how exactly would it happen that the board might lose jurisdiction and the explanation that came back to me made sense to me. That explanation was that under the Criminal Code these individuals who have been found not guilty by reason of being not criminally responsible have a right under the Criminal Code to a hearing once a year and that if when that right comes due, the tribunal is not ready to proceed, there's an argument - I don't think anybody has ever actually pushed it all the way, but there's an argument - that the person has a claim to be immediately released under habeas corpus and so it's extremely important that we not clear the way for someone to actually test this in court
and find out if they can be automatically released if the Criminal Code Review Board doesn't have a quorum.
I hear what the member for Richmond is saying, but in this case I accept the minister's explanation for what happened. These kinds of things happen. The consequences of not going forward with this I would say are very - you know, there are substantial risks here and in light of that, I have no problem with the way things have unfolded and I certainly have no difficulty voting in favour of these proposed appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: I, and I'm sure the Tory members on this committee, never thought we would see the day that the member for Halifax Fairview would be acting as chief apologist for the Minister of Justice in this. I simply point out the fact that the two people we're appointing today are not two people, as the member for Halifax Fairview gives the impression, that the minister had to go out and find, these are reappointments. These are people who were on this board whose terms lapsed and the Minister of Justice didn't take the time to reappoint them in a timely fashion to avoid the situation we find ourselves in.
I certainly have no intentions of holding this up or of not approving these, because of the importance of it, but I think the fact has to be reminded that, once again, the government has allowed a board to fall short of the necessary numbers it should have to avoid these types of situations. These are two reappointments of members who are currently members of the board whose terms expired earlier this year. That's the point I'm trying to make here, is that, yes, if it was a situation where they had to go find two new people who were never on the board because of a situation, that would be a different matter. These people are members of the board, who had served on the board for some time, whose terms the government just hadn't bothered getting around to sending them to this committee and to having them reappointed.
I think that's the point I'm trying to make, that that has to stop and in this day and age it's completely unnecessary that we have these types of situations that are coming up. This is not rocket science of reappointing people or appointing people to boards and it's just too often that we've seen the government allow these types of things to happen. It's not fair to the committee. It's certainly not fair to those who are being reappointed that it is being done in such a fashion. I think we raised those concerns last year with Justice Grant that it just wasn't appropriate to see these kinds of emergency meetings having to be held to reappoint people who have served this province very well in their capacities on the different agencies, boards and commissions. That's the point I was trying to make.
MR. STEELE: The member for Richmond just has his facts wrong. The minister had indicated to the member in the House that these people were not going to be reappointed. They applied for reappointment, but they were not going to be reappointed. It's only because
the new members appointed to the committee are in a conflict of interest that the minister has had to turn around and put them back on the board for at least the purpose of these hearings.
You know there's nobody who watches over the appointment process to ABCs more carefully than I do, but sometimes you just have to say yes, what the government is proposing is reasonable. The member for Richmond talks about rocket science; it's not rocket science to get your facts straight, and it's not rocket science to say that the government's not always wrong, and it's not rocket science to say that sometimes you just have to say yes, these things happen. This is one of those cases.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion? If not - and I apologize, I didn't go around the table and have everyone introduce themselves, but I believe we will do that by way of the recorded vote. Do you have a list or anything? We will just go around.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
YEAS NAYS
Mr. Ronald Chisholm
Mr. Carey
Mr. Olive
Mr. Samson
Mr. Steele
Mr. Morash
MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is carried.
With that, we move on to the next item of discussion. Mr. Samson, do you have some further discussion or a motion that you would like to put forward?
MR. SAMSON: Just a motion that a reminder be sent to all government departments, that they endeavour to do their best that all appointments required on boards to meet full complement and to meet quorum be done in a timely fashion. I think we've seen in numerous cases, especially as Education Critic, how many appointments have been left vacant for student positions, which has been a constant complaint. Certainly, I think this gives us another opportunity just to remind the departments that we expect that they will send the names in in a timely fashion and that the smooth running of the ABCs can continue without the need for these emergency meetings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Olive.
MR. OLIVE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is not an unreasonable request in the form of a motion, I would only qualify it by saying that perhaps the letter should be directed to the deputy ministers, that it be specific to the deputy, so that we know that the department head, basically, is getting the information, and that it does request, as the member for Richmond said, that the deputies ensure that these board appointments are brought through the system to the Human Resources Committee in a timely fashion. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a reasonable request.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With that friendly amendment and agreement from Mr. Samson, the motion is on the floor. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Is there any further discussion or business? Mr. Samson.
MR. SAMSON: Just a point of clarification. The Film Classification Board, the appointments that are coming forward, someone pointed out that they were only for a one-year period. Am I correct? I know the minister mused in the media that that board may not be continuing its actual function, and that their responsibilities may be going to an outside body. I'm just curious, is that correct that it's only for a one-year term, and as a result that's why there are only three names coming forward for reappointment? My recollection is that that's quite a large board. If I'm not mistaken it has had over 10 members in the past.
I'm just curious if the chairman or if Darlene may be aware of what the government's plans are with that board. Are they only making the appointments for one year, and are they only looking for a small number of appointees because of the changes being contemplated at this point in time? Just a point of clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The short answer would be yes. I do have a letter here from the minister, which I thought had been circulated and had not, so we will make copies and make sure it goes through. It doesn't give a specific time frame, but it says they want to allow the film classification function to continue while the process review is ongoing and until it's completed.
MR. SAMSON: If we had had that letter, I wouldn't have asked the question. That answers the question right there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We will get copies of that for you.
MR. SAMSON: Perfect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion? If not, we stand adjourned.
[The committee adjourned at 9:25 a.m.]